Legal Opinion

O'Neill v. Quarnstrom

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1907No. Civ. No. 374PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.

This is an action to recover from defendant, as a stockholder of a corporation, his proportion of a debt of the corporation, paid by plaintiffs, who claim to have made such payment* as sureties.

Judgment was for defendant upon a defense of the statute of limitations, and plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.

The statute was pleaded in accordance with section 458 óf the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no finding in the words of the plea that the bar of the statute had fallen, but the facts upon which defendant relied to support this plea the court found in detail. Appellants contend that there…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hunt v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Miller v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Shugart v. MaytagSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
  3. Grisso v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Corrington v. CrosbyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Fishback v. JensenIdaho Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API