Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. J. W. McKinley, Thomas Bryant, Nye & Malburn, and H. L. McNair, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This is a proceeding in mandamus.
The writ of mandate may be issued to any corporation, board or person “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use or enjoyment of a right” to which he is entitled, and there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1085, 1086.)
The natural persons named as defendants to the action arc the persons composing the board of directors of the corporation defendant and including its…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Guthrie v. HarknessSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Wright v. Oroville Gold, Silver, & Copper Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1870
- Johnson v. LangdonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Wait v. Kern River Mining, Milling, & Developing Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Ashton v. Dashaway Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Anton v. San Antonio Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Schnabel v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Minas De Artemisa, S. A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.