Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Aalwyn's Law Institute v. Martin

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1916No. S. F. No. 6744Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Concurrence

SLOSS, J., Concurring.

I concur in the judgment. The complaint, read as a whole, shows that the only defendant asserting an interest in the property is the Ocean Shore Rail road Company. No cause of action is therefore alleged against any other defendant.

As against the Ocean Shore Railroad Company, the complaint alleges that it claims title under an unauthorized or fraudulent transfer from the trustees of the Ocean Shore Railway Company. The plaintiff, as a stockholder of the latter corporation, seeks to avoid this transfer. But the complaint shows, affirmatively, that the Ocean Shore Railway…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hodge v. United States Steel Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1902
  2. Brown v. Duluth, M. & N. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Muir v. Citizens National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API