Legal Opinion

Maitia v. Allied L. & L. S. Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1926No. 2734PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] There is no such thing in this state as action for mere appointment of receiver; when made, appointment is ancillary to pending action brought by some one authorized to commence it; no private person, stranger, or stockholder can maintain action to dissolve corporation or seize its property. Rev. Laws, 5193; French Bank Case, 53 Cal. 495; State ex rel. Nenzel v. Court,49 Nev. 145.

Dissolution of corporation cannot be had without due notice. Rev. Laws, 5142. As…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. La Société Française D'Epargnes et de Prévoyance Mutuelle v. Dist. Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Dist.California Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Burgess v. HelmNevada Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Phillips v. WelchNevada Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Batesville Institute v. KauffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1873

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Finley v. FinleyNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Close v. RedeliusNevada Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Ewing v. SargentNevada Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Petition of FullerNevada Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Zeigler v. MooreNevada Supreme Court · 1959

12 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