Brewster v. Lathrop
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. Complaint avers, in substance, that at the time of the sale of the stock in question, it was understood between the parties, that the money then in the treasury of the company, subject to dividend, should belong to plaintiff; and that defendant had fraudulently imposed on plaintiff, an illiterate man, in the wording of the assignment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. Complaint avers, in substance, that at the time of the sale of the stock in question, it was understood between the parties, that the money then in the treasury of the company, subject to dividend, should belong to plaintiff; and that defendant had fraudulently imposed on plaintiff, an illiterate man, in the wording of the assignment. Complaint further avers, that there were in the treasury, subject to dividend, seven hundred and twenty dollars per share—fourteen hundred and forty dollars in all; and that defendant fraudulently induced the trustees to…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
On the twenty-second day of September, 1856, the plaintiff was the owner of two shares in the capital stock of the Ohio Mining Company, on which day he assigned them to defendant, by indorsing on each of the two certificates as follows:
“ I hereby assign, transfer, and set over all my interest in the within share of stock to H. B. Lathrop, and authorize the transfer to him, with all the dividends made after the morning of the twenty-third of September.
(Signed) H. Brewster.”
It was in proof that the shares sold were in a mining company which was then at work…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Tennant v. WildeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Darby v. Arrowhead Hot Springs Hotel Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Allith-Prouty Co. v. WallaceWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Gross v. Vilore Foods Company, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2021
- Korn v. EickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1922