Legal Opinion

Garretson v. Pacific Crude Oil Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1905No. L.A. No. 1306PublishedCited by 20 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion. Goodrich & McCutchen, and Oscar A. Trippet, for Appellant. George P. Adams, J. W. McKinley, and Cochran & Williams, for Respondents.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Plaintiff is a stockholder in defendant corporation, and as such sues for its benefit and that of all the stockholders, the corporation having, on plaintiff’s demand, refused to bring the action. The complaint sets forth two causes of action: First, to cancel an issue of sixty-eight thousand shares of the capital stock of defendant corporation; second, an issue of two hundred and fifty thousand shares. The first of these issues was made to defendant Corbin for himself and the original corporators who, with the corporation and one Wilbur, constitute the defendants in this action.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Scadden Flat Gold Mining Co. v. ScaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. California Southern Hotel Co. v. CallenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Kellerman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. BeecherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Pac. Fruit Co. v. CoonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Whitten v. DabneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Turner v. MarkhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. R. H. Herron Co. v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Rhode v. Dock-Hop Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Sargent v. Palace Cafe Co.California Supreme Court · 1917

15 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