Humboldt Savings & Loan Society v. Wennerhold
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
In April, 1870, one Adolph Hartmann was appointed secretary of the plaintiff, an incorporated savings bank. This corporation was formed for the purpose of aggregating the funds and savings of the members thereof and others, and the preservation and safe investment of ‘the same for the common benefit of all. It received money on deposit, and lent such money at interest.
Hartmann’s appointment was made by the board of directors by virtue of the by-laws of the corporation.
The duties of the secretary were prescribed by the bylaws. These duties were as follows:—
“The secretary shall keep, or cause…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The Corporation of New-Orleans v. WinterSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Hubert v. MendheimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Williams v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Fresno Enterprise Co. v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Louisiana State Bank v. LedouxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1848
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- San Pedro Lumber Co. v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Smith v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Moore v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983