Harvey v. Meigs
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles C. Boynton, and Frank L. Hultman, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
A general and special demurrer to the fourth amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and defendants had judgment that plaintiffs take nothing by the action. The appeal is from the judgment.
In their said amended complaint the plaintiffs allege that they bring the action “on behalf of the said Carisa Chemical Company, and on behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of said Carisa Chemical Company; that the said company had been a corporation ever since the month of August, 1904, with a capital of one million shares of the actual value of one dollar each at the time of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Taylor v. BidwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Beattie Manufacturing Co. v. GerardiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
3Cited by16 opinions
- Miller v. McKinnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Zahn v. Transamerica CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Neal v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Hogan v. IngoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.