Legal Opinion

Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1859No. 2449PublishedCited by 35 opinions

Appeal from the Fifth District.

1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.

It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a corporation^ and this allegation being denied in the answer, the case was tried in the Court below upon that issue alone. The plaintiff dates its-corporate existence as far back as 1852, and claims to have been.' duly and regularly incorporated under the general Act of 1850-, *426providing for the formation of corporations for manufacturing, mining, mechanical, and chemical, purposes. Section 122 of that Act provides that any three or more persons, who may desire to form a company for either of these purposes, “may make, sign, and…

2Cited by35 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Loverin v. McLaughlinIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Spring Valley Water Works v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. Abbott v. Omaha Smelting & Refining Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Randle v. Winona Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921

30 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