Legal Opinion

Ralston v. Bank of California

California Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1896No. 15970PublishedCited by 36 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. William T. Wallace, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

Defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of banking, and having a capital stock divided into thirty thousand shares, of the par value of one hundred dollars each. One J. Baum owned sixty shares of such stock, and held a certificate therefor, which provided that no transfer of the stock described in the certificate would be made upon the books until payment of all indebtedness due to the bank from the person in whose name the stock might stand on such books. In 1881, Baum transferred said certificate for value to Peder Sather, who, on September 13, 1886, *212demanded of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Payne v. ElliotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Jennings v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Bills v. Silver King Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Dodge v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  5. The Bank of San Luis Obispo v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Kremen v. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Kremen v. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  3. Barth v. PockMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  4. MacDermot v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API