Lewis v. Curry
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Secretary of State of the State of California. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The respondent, Miller & Lux, was duly and regularly incorporated under the laws of California in the year 1897. It did not pay to the state of California the state license-tax for the year 1907, which the law requires to be paid annually by corporations organized under the laws of this state. The petitioners are stockholders of said corporation and, as such, on behalf of said corporation, they tendered to the secretary of state the amount due the state on account of such tax for the year ending June 30, 1909. The secretary refused to receive the money on the ground that the corporation had…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Anderson v. GoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Kaiser Land and Fruit Co. v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Trower v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Baldwin v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by11 opinions
- Herbert v. RiddellDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1952
- C. De Baca v. BacaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
- Merrill v. District Court of the Fifth Judicial District State of WyomingWyoming Supreme Court · 1954
- Newlove v. Mercantile Tr. Co. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1909
- California National Supply Co. v. FlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.