Legal Opinion

Weede v. Emma Copper Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 1921No. 3639PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; W. H. Bramel, Judge. Action, by Ruby B. 'Williams Weede against the Emma Copper Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtFrick, J.

The plaintiff, in her complaint, in substance, alleged: That the defendant corporation, hereinafter called defendant, on the 20th day of November, 1906, was duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Utah, with a capitalization of 1,000,000 shares, of the par value of $1 each. That the defendant was incorporated for the purpose of taking.over, holding, and operating certain mining claims and mining property located in the state of Utah. That said mining claims and mining property were conveyed to the defendant by the owners thereof, in consideration of 600,000 shares of said capital stock, all…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Garey v. St. Joe Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1907
  2. San Bernardino Investment Co. v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Wall v. Basin Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Marshall v. WentzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  5. Somerville v. St. Louis M. & M. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ontjes v. BagleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
  2. Keetch v. CordnerUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Fower v. Provo Bench Canal & Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Schroeter v. Bartlett Syndicate Building Corp.California Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Johnson v. DahlquistWashington Supreme Court · 1923

5 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