Legal Opinion
Coombes v. Franklin
California Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 13939PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
The appeal in this cause must he dismissed, and it is ordered.
The reason for this holding is that 'the authority for the maintenance of the action against respondent has been removed by the elimination of the constitutional provision which furnished its sole support.
The complaint assumes the form of a general creditors’ and stockholders’ bill seeking to hold the defendants, and particularly respondent Getz, for embezzlements and defalcations of a fellow director of the corporation known as Getz Bros. & Company, which said defalcations aggregated the sum of about $550,000. Demurrer of said…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Krause v. RarityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Callet v. AliotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Napa State Hospital v. FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. Bank of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Coombes v. GetzSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Roberson v. RobersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- Hazzard v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- Coombes v. GetzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Sipe v. CorreaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.