Legal Opinion

Bidwell v. Babcock

California Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1890No. 13695PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

The defendant was sued as a stockholder of a corporation,—the San Diego Street Oar Company,—under section 322 of the Civil Code, to recover his proportionate part of certain alleged indebtedness of the corporation. His demurrer to the complaint was *30overruled, and upon his failure to answer, judgment was rendered against him by default. This appeal is from the judgment on the judgment roll, and the overruling of the demurrer is assigned as error.

The complaint embraces three causes of action: 1. Indebtedness of the corporation for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff “during…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Haskell v. HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Barlow v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lord v. GarlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. McGowan v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Thomas v. Wentworth Hotel Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Bank of Yolo v. WeaverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

5 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