Hale v. McGettigan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County. A. J. Buckles, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
This action was brought for the purpose of determining the validity of the County Govern*114ment Act, approved March 24, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 346), and to obtain a judgment that the county and township officers elected under that act hold their respective offices for the term of four years. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and, the defendants declining to answer, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants have appealed.
1. It is contended, on the part of the appellants, that 'the act in question never became a law, for the reason that it appears…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sherman v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Robinson v. BidwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Miller v. KisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Christy v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- People v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Standard Lbr. Co. v. PierceOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. MirmiraniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Mordecai v. Board of Supervisors of County of MaderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Eastwood Park Amusement Co. v. Mayor of East DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.