People v. Williams

56 Cal. 647
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1880·No. No. 6,931·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

By the Court :

It must be considered as settled in this State by the cases of Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 409, People v. Reclamation District No. 108, 53 Cal. 346, and other cases in this Court, that a reclamation district is a public corporation.

The main purposes of the present action is to obtain a judgment to the effect that Reclamation District No. 3 was not legally created, and has not any legal existence, and that the defendants, Williams and others, usurp the powers of trustees, etc. The Court below found in favor of the defendants, and on the authority of Dean v. Davis and People v. Reclamation District No. 108, supra, we affirm the judgment and order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Williams, 56 Cal. 647 (Cal. 1880).

56 Cal. 647 (People v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sherwood v. Worth County Drainage District Number One
250 S.W. 605 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
State v. McAllister
136 P. 354 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Parker v. Harris County Drainage Dist. No. 2
148 S.W. 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Reclamation District No. 70 v. Sherman
105 P. 277 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
People Ex Rel. Post v. San Joaquin Valley Agric. Ass'n
91 P. 746 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Whipple v. Tuxworth
99 S.W. 86 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907)
Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller
60 L.R.A. 190 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Sels v. Greene
81 F. 555 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1897)
Central Irrigation District v. De Lappe
21 P. 825 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Turlock Irrigation District v. Williams
18 P. 379 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Stansell v. Levee Board of Miss., Dist. No. 1
13 F. 846 (N.D. New York, 1881)