Shively v. Eureka Tellurium Gold Mining Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the opinion rendered upon a former appeal in 129 Cal. 293. Edward Sweeney, and Rohinson & Robinson, for Corporation, Appellant. Campbell, Metson & Campbell, and S. D. Woods, for Intervener, Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This case has been before the supreme court on a former appeal. It is reported in Shively v. Eureka etc. Co., 129 Cal. 293, [61 Pac. 939], to which we refer for a statement of the issues presented by the pleadings. The case was reversed because of the insufficiency of the allegations of the complaint in intervention and of the corresponding finding to show a personal indebtedness of Ludlum and Swezey on account of the alleged assessment of their stock in the defendant corporation. But in response to plaintiff’s prayer that judgment be rendered for him on the findings, the supreme court…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Chetwood v. California National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Beronio v. Ventura County Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Bingham v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Pauly v. PaulyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State Hospital for Criminal Insane v. Consolidated Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Porter v. Sandra R.California Court of Appeal · 1974
- Hogeberg v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Heine Piano Co. v. BloomerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Waring v. PitcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.