Wright v. Oroville Gold, Silver, & Copper Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Second District, Butte County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. First — A stockholder cannot maintain an action against the corporation for non-fulfillment of its duty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Second District, Butte County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. First — A stockholder cannot maintain an action against the corporation for non-fulfillment of its duty. (Smith v. Hurd, 12 Met. 371; Hopkins v. White, 1 Head, 31; Peabody v. Mint, 6 Allen, 52; Gorham v. Gilson, 28 Cal. 479.) Second — If any collusion was bad between the directors themselves, or the directors and a third person, to the stockholders’ injury, an action lies against the directors, not the corporation. (Crook v. Jewett, 12 How. Pr. 19; Abbott v. Newman, 8 Cush. 588; 2 Johns.…
1Opinion of the Court
Wallaoe, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of the Court, Temple, J., Cbockett, J., and Bhodes, C. J., concurring:
It appears that Jennings; being the owner of certain min-. ing property and grounds, tbe Oroville Gold, Silver and Copper Mining Company was organized and incorporated with a view to purchase them. Tbe capital stock of the corporation consisted of 2,000 shares, of tbe nominal value of $100 per share, and Jennings sold this mining property to tbe corporation for 990 full paid shares of its stock, and tbe remaining 1010 shares, issued to tbe other stockholders, were to be assessed so as to…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. New York & Northern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Jones v. Missouri-Edison Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Winchester v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Kohl v. LilienthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.