Legal Opinion

People v. Reclamation District No. 136

California Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 1898No. Sac. No. 238PublishedCited by 12 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. A. P. Gatlin,' Judge. The facts are. stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is a proceeding by quo warranto to exclude the defendants from all corporate rights. The demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and answer filed. When the case was called for trial defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, “for the reason that the pleading only averred that the defendants were usurping the functions of a corporation, there being no allegation of the particular circumstances constituting such usurpation.” The motion for a nonsuit was denied. Judgment passed for…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Town of Enterprise v. State ex rel. Attorney-GeneralSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
  2. Humboldt Cty. v. DinsmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. People ex rel. Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Alexander v. AlexanderNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Brewer v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Skelton v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Fox v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Estate of CampCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Chapman v. ZoberleinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Sherwood v. WallinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API