Legal Opinion

Hallidie v. Enginger

California Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1917No. S. F. No. 7269PublishedCited by 37 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Osgood Putnam, Wm. C. Crittenden, and Chas. C. Boynton, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

The following statement of this cause of action is plaintiff’s own: “The plaintiff sues as the trustee for the stockholders of a certain »corporation, California Wire Works, which has forfeited its charter. The complaint alleges facts showing in brief that the defendant while acting in a fiduciary capacity, by means of certain grossly fraudulent misrepresentations and acts, induced said California Wire Works to sell to defendant seventy-five shares of stock in another corporation known as the California Wire Cloth Company for a mere fraction of its real value. That the total amount paid by…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kohler v. AgassizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. De Leonis v. EtchepareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Mudge v. SteinhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Bechtel v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Thorington v. . MerrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1885

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Philpott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Weitzenkorn v. LesserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. McCall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Stanford Hotel Co. v. M. Schwind Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Beeson v. SchlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

32 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