Legal Opinion

Betts v. Southern California Fruit Exchange

California Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1904No. L.A. No. 1263PublishedCited by 33 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

HARRISON, C.

The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state. Among the purposes for which it is formed, are, as stated in its articles of incorporation, to engage in the general business of buying, marketing, and selling fruit and other merchandise; to engage in a general brokerage, factor, auction, and commission business; to conduct a forwarding and shipping business; to establish and maintain agencies of said classes of business in this state and in other states of the United States, etc. A. B. Wright was its agent at Wichita, in the state of Kansas, and A. H. Cargill…

2Cited by33 opinions

  1. People v. SanchezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. People Ex Rel. Dept. of Public Works v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922

28 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