Manning v. App Consolidated Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Paul C. Morf, William M. Cannon, and F. J. Solinsky, for Appellant. F. E. Cook, Goodfellow, Eells, Moore & Orrick, and Samuel M. Shortridge, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Appeal by plaintiff from the judgment. Plaintiff sued as a judgment creditor of the App Consolidated Gold Mining Company (which hereafter we shall designate as the “App Company”). The complaint charged that certain conveyances and other transactions upon the part of the App Company and the other defendants were fraudulent, and that the property and assets of that corporation were transferred for the purpose of preventing him from securing anything in satisfaction of his judgment. We shall abbreviate the names of the other corporate defendants, The Rawhide Gold Mining Company and the Central…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Spreckels v. Nevada BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Sausalito Bay Land Co. v. Sausalito Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Carty v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Gladwin v. GladwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Saurderson v. BroadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Skelly v. DockweilerDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1947
- Hasenjeager v. VothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Peterson v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Mix v. YoakumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934