Tapscott v. Mexican Colo. River Land Co.
California Supreme Court
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
- Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Kohl v. LilienthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Excelsior Water & Mining Co. v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Vercoutere v. Golden State Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by16 opinions
- Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Hutton v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Mindenberg v. Carmel Film Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Reese v. BorghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Hedges v. FrinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.