Reclamation District No. 3 v. Goldman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Sacramento, and from an order refusing a new trial. The deviation from the approved plans referred to in the opinion of the court, consisted in the exclusion from the land to be reclaimed of a narrow strip of about one hundred acres, which had been included in the approved plans. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
This action was instituted to foreclose the alleged lien of a delinquent assessment upon lands within a reclamation district, situate in Sacramento County: The district existed before, but was re-organized under the Act of March 28, 1868, “to provide for the management and sale of the lands of the State" (Stats. 1867-68, p. 507.)
It is urged here on behalf of respondent that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reason that the action is wrongly brought, that it is brought in the name of the district when it should have been brought in the name of the people. But when this cause was here…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Janes v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Clary v. HoaglandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Davidson v. DallasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Mulford v. EstudilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Reclamation District No. 108 v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In re Estate of WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Allen v. Cal. Mut. Bldg & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Hannon v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Lower Kings River Reclamation District, No. 531 v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.