Ball v. Tolman
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
This action is brought under the act approved April 23,1880, entitled “An act amendatory of an act for the better protection of the stockholders in corporations formed under the laws of the state of California for the purpose of carrying on and conducting the business of mining, approved March 30, 1874.” Trial by the court, and plaintiff had judgment for $1,000 liquidated damages and as penalty for the violation of said act. From the judgment and order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial this appeal is taken on a statement of the -case.
It appears from the evidence that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Miles v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Eyre v. HarmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Francais v. SompsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Schenck v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Shanklin v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. Bank of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Mueller v. MacBanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Anderson v. ByrnesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Ball v. TolmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Byrd v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.