Legal Opinion
Fontana v. Pacific Can Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided June 25, 1900No. S.F. No. 1431PublishedCited by 14 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Plaintiffs sued to recover a balance due upon the following contract alleged to have been entered into by plaintiffs and defendant on the day of its date:
“Agreement between the Pacific Can Company and Fontana & Co., both of the city and county of San Francisco.
“That the former shall sell to the latter two hundred and fifty (250) shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Can Company, at two hundred (200.00) dollars per share. Payment to be made by the latter’s note for fifty thousand (50,000) dollars, one day after date, with interest at six per cent per annum.
“Both stock and note…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Pauly v. PaulyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Major-Blakeney Corp. v. JenkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Smalley v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1908
- Warner v. WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Davis v. Pacific Studios Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.