Loveland v. Garner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— On April 23, 1880, the legislature passed an act amendatory of “ An act for the better pro*299tection of stockholders in corporations,” etc. It was intended for the benefit of stockholders in mining corporations, and prescribes, with great detail, the duties of directors, presidents, superintendents, secretaries, and other officers of such corporations. (Stats. 1880, State ed., 134.) It is sufficient to say here that section 1 of the act provides that the directors shall, on the first Monday of each month, cause to be made and posted in the office of the company an itemized account or…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Gay v. WinterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Curtis v. Richards & VantineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Felch v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Hemme v. HaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Mulcahy v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Gribble v. Columbus Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Otten v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Oliver v. the Swiss Club TellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Prichard v. KimballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.