Harrison v. Woodward
California Court of Appeal
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.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The determination of the controversy really turns upon the construction of a certain agreement between James E. Bell and A. Dalton Harrison, the parties of the first part, and John M. Seropian and George M. Seropian, the parties of the second part, executed on the twenty-third day of January, 1904. These parties were the owners of all but two shares of the capital stock of a corporation engaged in the fruit business. It is not disputed that the corporation was indebted to various persons in a sum exceeding $135,000, and it appears that it was insolvent. The affairs of the concern were…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- White v. CostiganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Wendt v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Cardinell v. O'dowdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by14 opinions
- DeGarmo v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Crowell v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Law v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Katz v. KarlssonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Englert v. Ivac Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.