Legal Opinion
Bassett v. Fairchild
California Supreme Court
Decided May 9, 1901No. S.F. No. 1366PublishedCited by 33 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court and in the dissenting opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
— The following parts of the opinion delivered in this case in Department Two, July 2, 1900, are hereby adopted: —
“ It is averred in the complaint that each of the plaintiffs is the owner of at least five shares of the capital stock of the corporation defendant, the Bitumen Consolidated Mining Company, the capital stock being three hundred thousand dollars, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each, and that this action is brought on behalf of themselves and other stockholders. It is also averred that during the times when the alleged wrongs were committed, defendants Fair-child,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Pew v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- McCarthy v. Mount Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Curtin v. Salmon River Hydraulic Gold Mining & Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- First National Bank v. DrakeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Remillard Brick Co. v. Remillard-Dandini Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Lazzarevich v. LazzarevichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- McKey v. SwensonMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Parsons v. Tacoma Smelting & Refining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.