People v. Hagar
Citations
- 52 Cal. 171
Syllabus
<p>Plaintiff in Action to Recoves. Swamp Land Assessment.—An action to recover an assessment levied for reclamation purposes in a swamp land district, organized under the Act of March 28th, 1868, may be prosecuted in tlie name o£ the people oí tbe State.</p> <p>Joinder of Actions.—If several tracts of swamp land, of the same owner, be separately assessed under one assessment, the assessments on tbe several tracts may be recovered in one action.</p> <p>General Denial in Verified Answer.—A general denial in a verified answer is inadmissible, and may be stricken out on motion of the plaintiff.</p> <p>Estoppel.—Whenever the jurisdiction oí a Court not of record depends on a fact which the Court is required to ascertain and settle by its decision, such decision, if the Court has jurisdiction of the parties, is conclusive, and not subject to any collateral attack.</p> <p>Land held under Mexican Grant mat be Included in Swamp Land District.—Under the Act of March 28th, 1868, land held under a confirmed Mexican grant may ho included and assessed in a swamp land district.</p> <p>Immaterial Averment in Answer.—If the petition for the formation of a, swamp land district under the Act of March 28th, 1868, is signed by persons purporting to be holders of certificates of purchase, patents, or other evidences of title, representing at least one-half of the land in the proposed district, and if the petition is approved and the district organized by the Board of Supervisors, in an action to enforce an assessment, an averment in the answer that there were a large number of land-owners in the district who did not sign the petition is immaterial and may be stricken out.</p> <p>Immaterial Error.—A judgment will not be reversed for an error which did not prejudice the appellant.</p> <p>Corporation. — Under the Act of March 5th, 1864, corporations might he formed for the purpose of purchasing and reclaiming swamp lands.</p> <p>By-laws for Swamp Land District.—Under the Act of March 28th,
Judges: Crockett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Board of Directors of Modesto Irrigation District v. TregeaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-03-19· cited 60×
- Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-06-27· cited 52×
- Jackson v. State ex rel. DyarIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-12-15· cited 46×
- Bull v. BrayCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-05-28· cited 36×
- Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court· 1941-01-31· cited 20×
- Lower Kings River Reclamation District, No. 531 v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-07-31· cited 19×
- Synnott v. ShaughnessyIdaho Supreme Court· 1885-03-02· cited 11×
- Spaulding v. North San Francisco Homestead & RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-12-12· cited 11×
- Reclamation Dist. No. 108 v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-10-28· cited 9×
- McCray v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-09-05· cited 8×
- Des Moines & Mississippi Levee District No. 1 v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri· 1912-02-29· cited 6×
- County of San Mateo v. MaloneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-10-09· cited 5×
- People v. LowdenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-09-28· cited 5×
- Nelson v. Oro Loma Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1950-12-22· cited 4×
- Reclamation District No. 3 v. ParvinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-09-26· cited 4×
- State v. SchenkelMissouri Court of Appeals· 1908-02-18· cited 1×
- Reclamation District No. 108 v. HagarU.S. Circuit Court· 1880-11-08
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State of Penn. v. THE WHEELING &C. BRIDGE CO.Supreme Court· 1852-05-27· cited 202×
- Starbuck v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court· 1830-07-15· cited 134×
- People ex rel. Case v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court· 1837-10-15· cited 112×
- Head & Amory v. Providence Ins. Co.Supreme Court· 1804-02-25· cited 102×
- State v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court· 1847-09-15· cited 66×
- Heaston v. Cincinnati & Fort Wayne RailroadIndiana Supreme Court· 1861-06-06· cited 61×
- Smith v. RiceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1814-11-15· cited 51×
- Megerle v. AsheCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-15· cited 30×
- Coveny v. HaleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1875-07-01· cited 29×
- In re the Extension of Church StreetNew York Supreme Court· 1867-06-03· cited 18×
- Waugh v. ChaunceyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1859-07-01· cited 15×
- Porter v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 14×
- J. Ben. Wilson & Co. v. Sprague Mowing Machine Co.Supreme Court of Georgia· 1876-01-15· cited 14×
- People v. MorseCalifornia Supreme Court· 1872-04-15· cited 13×
- Avery & Lathrop v. SlackNew York Supreme Court· 1837-10-15· cited 9×
- Dannebroge Gold Quartz Mining Co. v. AllmentCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-10-15· cited 5×
- Appeal of PiperCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-01· cited 5×
- Fratt v. ToomesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1874-07-01· cited 5×
- Dyer v. BarstowCalifornia Supreme Court· 1875-07-01· cited 5×
- In re Beale StreetCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-07-01· cited 4×
Other cases named People v. Hagar
7 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- People v. HagarAppellate Court of Illinois· 1987-09-17· cited 15×
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-10-28· cited 8×
- People v. HagarMichigan Court of Appeals· 1977-02-02· cited 5×
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1874-07-01· cited 4×
- People v. HagarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1995-06-20· cited 4×
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 1×
- People v. HagarMichigan Supreme Court· 1977-08-31
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.