Murphy v. Crouse
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing to dissolve an injunction to restrain the sale of shares of stock by an administrator. M. C. Sloss, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Withington & Carter, and J. P. Langhorne, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This action was brought to compel the corporate defendant to cause to be transferred to plaintiff one hundred and ten shares of its capital stock, which plaintiff claims to have purchased from the executor of Woodward, who was appointed as such in Minnesota, where the testator was a resident at the time of his death. Woodward died testate, February 3, 1899, and George W. Tates, who was named in the will as executor, was appointed and qualified, March 6, 1899, and appellant was, on the twenty-sixth day of April, 1899, duly appointed administrator with the will an nexed, by the superior court…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wyman v. HalsteadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Beckett v. SeloverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Ex parte GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Meeks v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- McCully v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Estate of GlassfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- In Re Estate of LaytonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Rawitzer v. First Trust Co. of OmahaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Wren v. DixonNevada Supreme Court · 1916
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.