Legal Opinion

Bainbridge v. Stoner

California Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1940No. Sac. 5243PublishedCited by 120 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

The question which is presented by the appellants in this case concerns the sufficiency of their complaint to state a cause of action against the respondent B. L. Stoner. The superior court sustained his demurrer without leave to amend and subsequently entered a judgment dismissing the action as to him.

According to the allegations of the complaint, the action was brought by the appellants in behalf of themselves and •other minority stockholders of the Mark Twain Mining Company, a corporation, to have Stoner and others declared trustees of certain mining claims for the benefit of the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Rutherford v. Rideout BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by120 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Berniker v. BernikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. People v. ZamoraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. In Re Gregory Dewitt Cantrell, DebtorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

115 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