Goodspeed v. Law
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge. Action at law by Charles F. Goodspeed against Herbert E. Daw. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
Goodspeed, plaintiff in error and plaintiff below, brought this action to recover from the defendant, Eaw, upon a statutory liability as a stockholder in a California corporation, the Hydrox Chemical Company of the Pacific Coast, half of the amount of 17 promissory notes. The writ of error is prosecuted from a judgment entered in the District Court by direction of the court to the jury-
The plaintiff alleges the execution of 17 notes, negotiable in form, by Hydrox Chemical Company of the Pacific Coast, to be called the Pacific Coast Company, to the order of a New Jersey…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- California-Calaveras Mining Co. v. WallsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Rudasill v. . FallsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- MacDonald v. De FremeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- La Grande National Bank v. BlumOregon Supreme Court · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Irving Nat. Bank v. LawCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926