Provident Land Corporation v. Provident Irrigation District

Annotate this Case
[Sac. No. 5134. In Bank. November 28, 1938.]

PROVIDENT LAND CORPORATION (a Corporation), Appellant, v. PROVIDENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT (an Irrigation District) et al., Respondents.

COUNSEL

Louis Bartlett and W. S. McGuire for Appellant.

George R. Freeman, Thomas Rutledge and Elmer Laine for Respondents.

Hankins & Hankins, C. F. Metteer, Harry W. Horton, George R. Kirk, Arvin B. Shaw, Jr., A. L. Cowell and Thomas C. Boone, as Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

THE COURT.

This is a companion case to Provident Land Corp. v. Zumwalt, Sac. No. 5133 (ante, p. 365 [85 PaCal.2d 116]), this day decided. [1] The issues raised are identical, and the decision therein is controlling. For the reasons stated in said case, the judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrers and permit defendants to answer if they deem it advisable to do so.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.