Legal Opinion

Greenleaf v. Jack

California Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1901No. L.A. No. 926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion. Max Blum, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the Court

HAYNES, C.

The plaintiff, a creditor of the County Bank of San Luis Obispo, a corporation, brought this action in the county of San Luis Obispo against four of its stockholders, to recover from them the several proportions of her claim for which they were severally liable as such stockholders. Said bank was located in said county, and that was its principal place of business. Defendant Koshland in due time moved to change the place of trial to the pity and county of San Francisco, upon the ground that said city and county was the place of his residence. This motion was denied, and Koshland…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hearne v. De YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Greenleaf v. JacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Monogram Co. v. KingsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Herman Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Aisbett v. Paradise Mountain Mining & Milling Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. O'Brien v. O'BrienCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Royal Bank of Canada v. A. McCormick & Co.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1917

1 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