Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury
California Supreme Court
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
- Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Loverin v. McLaughlinIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Spring Valley Water Works v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Abbott v. Omaha Smelting & Refining Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1876
- Randle v. Winona Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.