Legal Opinion
Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 20, 1960No. Civ. 18705PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooling, J.
Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his actions (consolidated for trial) to recover the balance due on five promissory notes executed by respondent and payable to Douglas Investments Limited at Montreal, Canada. Appellant sued as assignee and it is admitted that the assignment was for collection only. It is likewise admitted that Douglas Investments Limited is a Canadian corporation not qualified to do business in California. The motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the actions were precluded by section 6801 of the Corporations Code which provides in part: “A foreign…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. ResnickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- MacIsaac v. PozzoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Carl FW Borgward, GMBH v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- People's Building, Loan & Saving Ass'n v. BerlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- C.I.T. Corporation v. StuartMississippi Supreme Court · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Detsch & Co. v. Calbar, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Cal-Western Business Services, Inc. v. Corning Capital GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Mediterranean Exports, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- United Medical Management Ltd. v. GattoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Hurst v. Buczek Enterprises, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.