Craddock

Craddock v. O'Brien

Good Law
104 Cal. 217·1894 Cal. LEXIS 881·37 P. 896
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 1894No. 18276California1,180 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

The defendant, in 1885, was the owner of certain judgments rendered by the superior court of Yuba county against “ Drainage District Number One, of the state of California” (which was organized under the act of April 23, 1880, entitled “An act to promote drainage ”), and made an agreement with the plaintiff, Craddock, whereby plaintiff undertook to collect them, and for which service, if successful, defendant agreed he should receive one thousand dollars. This agree *218 ment, however, included another judgment in which defendant was not interested.

Plaintiff also received for collection other claims of like character, all being judgments against said “ drainage district,” rendered in “ condemnation proceedings” instituted by said district under the code provisions entitled “ Of Eminent Domain but, in the case of People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 625 , it had been held that the act under which the district was organized was unconstitutional, and that the district had no legal existence. The work, however, which the district was organized to accomplish appears to have been done, so far as it affected the property of O’Brien and the others in whose favor, judgments had been rendered, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.