Provident Land Corp. v. Bartlett
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
Provident Irrigation District, a corporation, heretofore issued and there were outstanding a large number of its bonds. The corporation became embarrassed financially. The plaintiff, another corporation, Provident Land Corporation, hereinafter called the Provident, was formed for the purpose of acquiring said bonds and protecting the rights of the holders thereof. George H. MeKaig, W. G. Aldenhagen, and E. 0. Kaufmann were the directors of the Provident. George H. MeKaig, Fred G. Stevenot, and E. 0. Kaufmann were the members of and constituted the Bondholders’ Protective Committee of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Doudell v. ShooCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Stockton Combine Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glen's Falls Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Gunder v. GunderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Middleton v. FinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Mather v. MatherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gombos v. AsheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Nicholson v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Farmers Equipment Co. v. ClingerIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
- Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Crofoot v. CrofootCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.