Legal Opinion

Wrightson v. Dougherty

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1936No. S. F. 15389PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Viewing the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as amended most favorably to the plaintiff, the following facts are stated therein. Washington H. Ochsner was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $.12,500. On January 24, 1927, said Ochsner was the owner of 100 shares of stock of the Universal Oil Company, and on said day plaintiff and Ochsner entered into an agreement that in consideration of the cancellation of said indebtedness by plaintiff, he and Ochsner would own said 100 shares of stock as copartners, and that the certificate evidencing said shares of stock should remain in the name and…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Gilmore v. . HamNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Fontana Land Co. v. LaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. De La Beckwith v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Bigelow v. WalravenMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Moss v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. F. M. Slagle & Co. v. BushnellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Kelly v. LiddicoatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API