Legal Opinion

Paige v. Roeding

California Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1892No. 13738PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

— This was an action to recover certain sums of money from the defendants, Roeding, Perkins, and Richardson, as stockholders of the Wheeler Fruit Packing Company, a corporation. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment rendered by the trial court, and the case is now before us upon a judgment roll containing no bill of exceptions, but consisting simply of the pleadings, findings and judgment. Subsequently to the filing of the transcript, respondents brought to this court another set of findings and another judgment made and entered in the same cause several months prior to the filing of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Caruthers v. HensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Ingerman v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Parker v. AltschulCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Canadian & American Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Clarita Land & Investment Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Halpern v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Colton Land & Water Co. v. SwartzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Spivey v. District Court of Third Judicial DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1923

13 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