Legal Opinion

Wells v. Comstock

California Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1956No. L. A. 23929PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

By written contract plaintiffs Reynolds and Wells agreed to sell and defendant Comstock agreed to buy 440 shares of corporate stock evidenced by described certificates, and defendant Mendizza guaranteed Comstock’s performance. In this action for breach of contract plaintiffs recovered a money judgment against Comstock based on his refusal to pay the agreed price and against defendant Me'ndizza based on her guaranty.

The principal defense at the trial, and defendants’ principal contention on this appeal, is that the contract is unenforceable because 380 of the shares were illegally issued. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Hunter v. SparlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Domenigoni v. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Bank of Orland v. HarlanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Alzado v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  3. Clejan v. ReismanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. City Lincoln-Mercury Co. v. LindseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. McIntosh v. MillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

23 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