Legal Opinion

Tapscott v. Mexican Colo. River Land Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1908No. S.F. No. 4585PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

To plaintiff’s complaint a general demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Upon plaintiff’s failure- to amend, judgment passed for defendants, and plaintiff' prosecutes this appeal. The material averments of his com-plaint are as follows: That the Mexican Colorado River Land. Company, a defendant herein, is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of California; that its capital stock is forty thousand shares of the par value - of fifty cents and that plaintiff is a stockholder, owning about one fifth of the capital stock, and is also a director of' the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Kohl v. LilienthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Excelsior Water & Mining Co. v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Vercoutere v. Golden State Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Hutton v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
  3. Mindenberg v. Carmel Film Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Reese v. BorghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Hedges v. FrinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API