Smith v. 49 & 56 Quartz Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The ease will be understood from the opinion. The Court below first granted an injunction restraining the company from paying dividends on the stock in controversy, to any one except plaintiff, and restraining defendants, Whiteman & Shellcross, from transferring the stock.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The ease will be understood from the opinion. The Court below first granted an injunction restraining the company from paying dividends on the stock in controversy, to any one except plaintiff, and restraining defendants, Whiteman & Shellcross, from transferring the stock. At the hearing, final decree was made that Shellcross reconvey the stock to plaintiff, and pay him four hundred and two dollars and fifty cents, the amount of dividends received, over and above the debt aud interest, that the company make the transfer on their books, and pay plaintiff all…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
On the 30th day of May, 1858, the' plaintiff was the owner of two and a half shares of stock in this company. A certificate was issued upon each half share. On that day, the company levied an assessment upon the stock of one hundred and sixty dollars to each share, to be paid on the 15th June thereafter. The shares of the plaintiff were advertised for assessments *245which he had failed to pay, and, on the 16th dune, sold at public auction for six hundred and nine dollars, to one Wright. On the same day, White transferred the shares to W. Whiteman, one of the defendants, at that time one of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dewey v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by12 opinions
- Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Turpie v. LoweIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Travelers' Ins. Co. v. LazenbyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918
- Livingston v. IvesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Barrow v. BrentSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.