Woodruff v. Perry

37 P. 526, 103 Cal. 611, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 833
California Supreme Court·Decided August 25, 1894·No. No. 19405·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

37 P. 526 (Woodruff v. Perry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)