Cheney v. Canfield
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hunsaker, Britt & Fleming, and Hunsaker & Britt, for Appellant. Ward Chapman, and O’Melveney, Stevens & Milliken, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff to have a sale by the defendant corporation of forty-one thousand six hundred and sixty-six shares of defendant’s corporate stock of which he claimed to be the owner declared void. The sale was made for a delinquent assessment and defendant Canfield is the purchaser and holder of the stock.
The defendants had judgment and plaintiff appeals therefrom and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
One of the main points presented for consideration here is the validity of the assessment upon which the sale of the stock was based. All the proceedings…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thompson v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Herbert Kraft Co. Bank v. Bank of OrlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Raisch v. M. K. & T. Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- Ruck v. Caledonia Silver Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
3Cited by12 opinions
- Richman v. Bank of PerrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Stivers v. Sidney Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1949
- Long v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Torlai v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Davison-Joseph Campau Realty Co. v. Commissioner (A)United States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.