Beal v. Smith
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
On February 24, 1916, plaintiff as a stockholder in the United Properties Company, commenced this action on behalf of the company and its stockholders to recover from certain defendants property alleged to belong to the corporation, 'to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances of said properties, for the cancellation of securities alleged to have been fraudulently issued, for damages, and other in cidental relief. The company was joined as a party defendant because it refused to institute the action after demand. The defendants demurred separately to the complaint upon both general and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. LewisohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Whitten v. DabneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Western States Life Ins. Co. v. LockwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Henderson v. Buchanan (In Re Western World Funding, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · 1985
- Hogan v. IngoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Reid v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Admiralty Fund v. Peerless InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.