Legal Opinion

Nakashima v. Muth

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 31, 1970No. Civ. No. 25562Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVID, J,*

appeal from plaintiff’s judgment on a $60,000 promissory note. Due execution, delivery and nonpayment were admitted; but it is contended that both the note and the transaction in which it was given were void, violating Corporations Code sections 26100 and 26103 prohibiting the sale of any corporate security without the permit of the Corporations Commissioner. The trial court found that the permit requirement was inapplicable, under the exceptions of Corporations Code section 25152, subdivision (a) (repealed, 1968, now covered by § 25104, subd. (a)). This conclusion was amply…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. ResnickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Western Oil & Refining Co. v. Venago Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1933
  3. People v. DavenportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Engineering Service Corp. v. Longridge Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Claremont Press Publishing Co. v. BarksdaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

16 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