Legal Opinion

Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1896No. L. A. No. 2PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Lctcien B. Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

Action for the conversion of stock in a corporation.

Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state. On November 18, 1893, plaintiff was the owner of fifty sharés of stock in the defendant corporation, represented by certificates numbered 72 and 79, each for twenty-five shares. These certificates were in defendant’s possession. On the day above mentioned, plaintiff, having agreed to sell forty of said shares to one Kaelin, offered to indorse and deliver said certificates to the corporation, and demanded that forty shares thereof be transferred to said Kaelin, and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Swim v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Barstow v. Savage Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Atkins v. GambleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Mandlebaum v. North American Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1857
  5. Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. PalmbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  2. Kohn v. Sacramento Electric, Gas Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  3. O'Dea v. Hollywood Cemetery Assoc.California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Perkins v. CowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Dooley v. Gladiator Consolidated Gold Mines & Milling Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1906

9 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