Legal Opinion

Bell Development Co. v. Marshall

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 16, 1917No. Civ. No. 1958PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

WORKS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for an unpaid subscription to the capital stock of respondent corporation. The appellant interposed a general demurrer to the second amended complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and, the appellant standing on the issue of law and refusing to answer, the respondent had judgment.

The pleading of the respondent alleges an ordinary demand for the payment of the subscription and the appellant’s refusal to comply with the demand; but there is no allegation that the respondent has attempted to follow the provisions of section 331 of the Civil Code and those…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Los Angeles Athletic Club v. SpiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Imperial Land & Stock Co. v. OsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Coast Amusements, Inc. v. StinemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Vegetable Oil Corp. v. TwohyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API