People v. La Rue
Citations
- 67 Cal. 526
- 8 P. 84
- 1885 Cal. LEXIS 690
Syllabus
<p>Swamp Lands—Reclamation Disteict—Public Cobpoeation.—A swamp land reclamation district is a public corporation for municipal purposes.</p> <p>Id.—De Facto Cobpoeation—Legality of its Acts.—A corporation de facto may legally do and perform every act aud thing which the same entity could do or perform were it a de jure corporation. As to all the world, except the paramount authority under which it acts and from which it receives its charter, it occupies the same position as though in all respects valid, and even as against the State, except in direct proceedings to arrest its usurpation of power, its acts are binding.</p> <p>Id.—Reobganization—Legality of Obiginal Disteiots. — Swamp land levee and reclamation districts de facto, acting as such in good faith and under an attempted compliance with the law, may, under section 8489 of the Political Code, be united, consolidated, and reorganized, so as to form a new corporation in all respects valid, and proceedings in the nature of quo warranto against such new corporation cannot he extended to an inquiry and determination as to the legality of the organization of the original districts.</p> <p>Pbivate Coefoeation—Poweb to Hold Real Estate—Peesumption.—Every corporation is presumed to have power to purchase and hold real estate, and if there is anything in its charter, or the business in which it is engaged, or the law under which it is organized, abridging this power, it must be shown affirmatively.</p>
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1902-11-26· cited 57×
- Central Irrigation District v. De LappeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-05-31· cited 51×
- Turlock Irrigation District v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-05-31· cited 45×
- People v. GunnCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-08-04· cited 24×
- Brown Bros. v. Columbia Irrigation DistrictWashington Supreme Court· 1914-11-16· cited 20×
- Whipple v. TuxworthSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1907-01-07· cited 19×
- Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. John Day Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court· 1923-01-02· cited 16×
- Federal Chemical Co. v. PaddockCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1936-03-27· cited 15×
- People v. Montecito Water Co.California Supreme Court· 1893-02-09· cited 15×
- Stockton Savings Bank v. StaplesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-04-25· cited 14×
- First Baptist Church v. BranhamCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-06-30· cited 12×
- Granite Gold Mining Co. v. MaginnessCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-09-10· cited 12×
- Fisher v. Pioneer Construction Co.Supreme Court of Colorado· 1917-01-15· cited 10×
- Sioux Falls Light & Power Co. v. CoughranSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1911-05-31· cited 2×
- Purdin v. Washington National Building, Loan, & Investment Ass'nWashington Supreme Court· 1906-01-09· cited 1×
- People's Ditch Co. v. '76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court· 1896-03-10
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Other cases named People v. La Rue
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
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.