Legal Opinion

Michelin Tire Co. v. Coleman & Bentel Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1919No. L. A. No. 4519PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.

Action to recover an indebtedness which arose out of the sale of automobile tires and accessories to the Coleman & Bentel Company under certain agency contracts— the defendant George R. Bentel having been included as a party defendant on account of his proportionate stockholders’ liability to the extent of the stock owned by him in the defendant corporation. The action» was begun January 17, 1912. The court made findings and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff corporation for $17,749.14 and interest from January 17, 1912, and against George R. Bentel for $7,522.90 and interest, for his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. DoleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Bank of Yolo v. Sperry Flour Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Ivey v. Kern County Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Wilson v. Alcatraz Asphalt Co.California Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Cochran v. EllsworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Ury v. Jewelers Acceptance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Manning v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Record MacHine & Tool Co. v. Pageman Holding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1959

9 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