Legal Opinion

Johnson v. California Lustral Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1899No. S.F. No. 1094PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, C.

Suit to foreclose a mortgage made by'defendant to secure payment of its two promissory notes, each for the sum of five thousand 'two hundred and thirty-six dollars, besides interest. The property mortgaged is a tract of land owned by defendant containing about one hundred and four acres. The defense is founded on the act of the legislature entitled, “An act for the further protection of stockholders in mining companies,” approved April 23, 1880 (Stats. 1880, p. 131); the first section whereof provides, among other things, that “it shall not be lawful for the directors of any mining…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. McShane v. CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Hines v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Pekin Mining & Milling Co. v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Granite Gold Mining Co. v. MaginnessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Royal Consol. Mining Co. v. Royal Consol. Mines (Cal.) Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Williams v. GaylordSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Lacy v. GunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Williams v. GaylordCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
  5. Primeau v. ActonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API