Bassett v. Fairchild
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Action by A. C. Bassett and another against J. A. .Fair-child and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and from an order denying their motion for a new trial defendants appeal. Reversed.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
It is averred in the complaint that each of the plaintiffs is the owner of at least five shares of the capital stock of the corporation defendant, the Bitumen Consolidated Mining Company, the capital stock being $300,000, divided into shares of $100 each, and that this action is *460brought on behalf of themselves and other stockholders. It is also averred that, during the times when the alleged wrongs were committed, defendants Fairchild, Ferine, Walrath and Miles were directors of the corporation defendant, the whole number of directors being six, and the other two being plaintiff Bassett and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Miner v. Belle Isle Ice Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Buell v. Buckingham & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Pew v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Foster v. Mullanphy Planing Mill Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wonderful Group Mining Co. v. RandWashington Supreme Court · 1920
- Young v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Oregon Short Line R. v. District Court of Third Judicial DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1906
- Rowland v. Demming Exploration Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Harsh v. Silver Hill Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1924