Legal Opinion

W. H. Marston Co. v. Kochritz

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1926No. Docket No. 5471PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

This is an action against the stockholders of Central Alaska Fisheries, Inc., to enforce their stockholders’ liability. On June 26, 1924, the trial court made an order quashing the summons issued upon the second amended complaint and dismissing the action as to Mathew Hamilton, as the administrator of the estate of J. Carmichael, deceased, and this appeal is from that order.

The grounds of the action, as alleged in the second amended complaint, are that W. H. Martson guaranteed the notes of the Central Alaska Fisheries, Inc., aggregating $138,000; that as such guarantor…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Christerson v. FrenchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Bemmerly v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Hentsch v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  4. Louvall v. GridleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Linott v. RowlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. Neal v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Westphal v. WestphalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Fielding v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND CTY. OF SFCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Pearson v. NortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

16 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