Aalwyn's Law Institute v. Martin
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after an order sustaining demurrers of all of the defendants to the fourth amended complaint.
The suit is one to quiet title. It is alleged in the complaint that Ocean Shore Railway Company was a corporation; that its charter was declared forfeited for nonpayment of license tax on November 30, 1910; that on the date of the forfeiture the defendants, Martin, Moore, Harvey, Folger and Pillsbury constituted the board of directors of the corporation and by the forfeiture became “trustees of said corporation”; and that plaintiff is the owner and holder of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- McDonald v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Burris v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Newhall v. Western Zinc Min. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Moss Estate Co. v. AdlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Los Angeles & Arizona Land Co. v. MarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Willcox v. Harriman Securities CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1933
- Walters v. Fidelity Mortgage of California, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.