Sherman v. Harley
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Stutsman & Stutsman, and Maurice F. Enderle, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDS, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the defendants’ favor, in an action brought by plaintiff, as the holder of two judgments against a corporation known as the Oleum Development Company, to recover from said defendants the several amounts claimed to be due upon their stockholders’ liability for the unpaid portion of their subscription to the stock of the said corporation. The facts of the ease, as embodied in the findings of the court, may be summarized as follows:
The Oleum Development Company was originally incorporated under the name of the Clark Copper Company and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- First National Bank v. Gustin Minerva Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Vermont Marble Co. v. Declez Granite Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Adamant Manufacturing Co. of America v. WallaceWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- R. H. Herron Co. v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Easton National Bank v. American Brick & Tile Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Moore v. MoffattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Spencer v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Rhode v. Dock-Hop Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Zierath v. ClaggettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Hasson v. KoeberleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.