Coast Amusements, Inc. v. Stineman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, J., pro tem.
This is an action to recover the par value of 8,500 shares of respondent’s stock alleged to have been subscribed for by appellants and for which they failed and refused to reimburse the company.
The court found that respondent was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California; that on or about July 7, 1925, appellants, together with W. E. Knotts, F. W. Becker and L. H. Hendricks, entered into an oral agreement among themselves to form the respondent corporation and subscribe for certain stock, and pursuant thereto articles of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. BeecherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Marysville Electric Light & Power Co. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ventura & Ojai Valley Railway v. HartmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Becker v. StinemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- National Stone Tile Corp. v. VoorheisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Columbia Engineering Co. v. JoinerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Becker v. StinemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Langer v. WoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934