Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Manhattan SEC. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $88,791.94, alleged to be due it as the purchase price of certain shares of the capital stock of plaintiff subscribed for by the defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff and from that judgment and from the order denying its motion for a new trial defendant appeals.
The appellant states that the whole controversy centers on the interpretation of the subscription contract. The contract was in the form of a communication by defendant to plaintiff. This communication declared that defendant had given full consideration to the mining operations…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- People v. EisemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- MacGruer v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Provident Gold Mining Co. v. HaynesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Deaux v. Trinidad Bean & Elevator Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.