Baldwin v. Miller & Lux
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Upon further consideration of this case upon rehearing before the court in Bank, we adhere to the opinion of Justice McFarland, formerly rendered in Department. In addition to what is there said, we add some remarks concerning the points urged upon the rehearing:—
1. The proposition that a corporation cannot, except in the manner provided by law, divide its capital stock among its stockholders, has no application to this case. The property formerly belonging to the firm of Miller & Lux, which was, by the successors in interest of that firm, conveyed to the newly formed corporation, also named…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shorb v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Chater v. S.F. Sugar Ref. Co.California Supreme Court · 1861
- Hunt v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Clute v. LovelandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Cornell v. CorbinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Herbert v. RiddellDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1952
- Orme v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'nArizona Supreme Court · 1923
- Stevenot v. NorbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Spencer v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Southern California Home Builders v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.