Legal Opinion

Prudential Petroleum Co. v. Peck

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 15, 1933No. Docket No. 7730PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.

A demurrer to plaintiff’s third amended complaint for the recovery of an unpaid stock subscription was sustained without leave to amend, and plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of dismissal thereafter entered.

The complaint contains two counts, the first of which, after alleging the corporate capacity of plaintiff, avers in substance that one Arthur R. Peck died on or about the 18th of September, 1927, leaving an estate in Los Angeles County, and leaving as his sole residuary legatees and devisees the defendants, “who heretofore have been duly and regularly appointed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Haddad v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Gruwell v. SeyboltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Visalia & Tulare Railroad v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Meilink v. GianelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Berkeley Hillside Properties Co. v. KellyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Overton v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. Shive v. BarrowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Palpar, Inc. v. ThayerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API