Legal Opinion
Kendall v. Porter
California Supreme Court
Decided February 14, 1898No. Sac. No. 152PublishedCited by 7 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Matt. F. Johnson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This cause was submitted in Bank, and on June 9, 1896, the following decision was rendered:
“HENSHAW, J.—This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent, as treasurer of the city of Sacramento, to pay the plaintiff the principal of certain overdue bonds of the city of Sacramento, with interest thereon from the date of their maturity. A demurrer to the petition was sustained by the trial court, and judgment thereupon entered against plaintiff, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.
“The question thus presented is whether the bonds of the city of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bates v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- People ex rel. German Insurance of Freeport v. GetzendanerIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Beckwith v. Trustees of the Hartford, Providence & Fishkill RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- Kohler v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- State v. GriffinWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Irvine v. Reclamation District No. 108California Supreme Court · 1944
- Bullard v. County of Riverside, Drainage District ImprovementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.