Kohler v. Agassiz
California Supreme Court
Aureal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, refusing to dissolve an attachment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the superior court refusing to dissolve an attachment.
The action is brought by the assignee of an insolvent corporation, organized under the laws of the state of California, against Agassiz, Shaw, and a number of others, to recover the balance due from them severally upon their subscriptions to the capital stock of the company.
The point made by appellants (Agassiz and Shaw) is, “ that the cause of action is not an attachable cause of action.”
So much of the affidavit of the plaintiff upon which the writ of attachment issued as is essential here is as follows:…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- California Southern Hotel Co. v. CallenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Dunn v. MackeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- West v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Marysville Electric Light & Power Co. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Glenn v. SaxtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by48 opinions
- McCall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Stanford Hotel Co. v. M. Schwind Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Beeson v. SchlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Hallidie v. EngingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Burke v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.