Woodruff v. Perry

37 P. 526, 103 Cal. 611, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 833
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 25, 1894
DocketNo. 19405
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 P. 526 (Woodruff v. Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woodruff v. Perry, 37 P. 526, 103 Cal. 611, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 833 (Cal. 1894).

Opinion

De Haven, J.

The assessment referred to in the complaint not having been authorized by a vote of the electors of the Otay Irrigation District, was illegal under the rule announced in the case of Tregea v. Owens, 94 Cal. 317; and inasmuch as the invalidity of such assessment would not appear upon the face of the deed given to the purchaser at the sale made for the purpose of collecting the delinquent tax levied by such assessment, the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction given by the judgment appealed from. (Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127; Burr v. Hunt, 18 Cal. 303.)

Judgment affirmed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

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

Related

Nevada-California Power Co. v. Hamilton
235 F. 317 (D. Nevada, 1916)
Las Animas & San Joaquin Land Co. v. Preciado
580 P. 239 (California Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 P. 526, 103 Cal. 611, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-perry-cal-1894.