Legal Opinion

Horseshoe Pier Amusement Co. v. Sibley

California Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1910No. L.A. No. 2490PublishedCited by 7 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Frederick W. Houser, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

The judgment and order of the lower court in this ease was affirmed by the district court of appeal and this court granted a rehearing in order that we might further consider the effect upon the contract, which was the basis of the action, and upon the rights arising therefrom, of the organization of the plaintiff corporation without including the name of Luella Sibley in the list of subscribers. A further study of the matter has convinced us that while, under certain circumstances, such action might operate as an estoppel against the corporation, preventing it from pursuing its claim that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kohler v. AgassizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. California Southern Hotel Co. v. CallenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. BeecherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. West v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Marysville Electric Light & Power Co. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Spencer v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Allen v. DaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Allen v. ChatfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  4. In re F. H. Donovan Painting Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1963
  5. Estate of FinchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API