Wickersham v. Crittenden
California Supreme Court
Arpead from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order denying a new trial. W. E. Greene, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The plaintiff, as a stockholder in the Bank of San Luis Obispo, brings this action on behalf of himself and other stockholders, for the benefit of the corporation, to compel the defendant to account for and pay over to the corporation certain moneys received by him ostensibly for his salary as president, but which the plaintiff alleges were received without right. The facts out of which the cause of action is claimed to arise are stated in the opinion given in Wickersham v. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 17, and in an action similar to the present which was brought May 16, 1892, with reference to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by7 opinions
- Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Puller v. Royal Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- Lower Kings River Reclamation District No. 531 v. McCullahCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Shively v. Eureka Tellurium Gold Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
- Barrett v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.