More v. Hutchinson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Jas. M. Troutt, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
This is an action to recover on a stockholder’s statutory liability. The defense is that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant is a stockholder in a corporation which assumed and agreed to pay an outstanding obligation of the Morris Real Estate Company. The question involved is as to whether or not the liability of the stockholders of the Palo Alto Investment Company, in which the defendant was a stockholder, accrued at the time of the assumption of this outstanding indebtedness or at the time of the execution of the note…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Tweeddale v. TweeddaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Hunt v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Stanford Hotel Co. v. M. Schwind Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Washer v. Independent Mining & Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Johnson v. Central Trust Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bogart v. George K. Porter Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
- Roberts v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
- Bryan v. BanksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Anderson v. Calaveras Central Mining Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Cutting v. BryanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.