Legal Opinion

Baird v. Olsheski

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 10, 1929No. Docket No. 6418PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A demurrer by respondent to the second amended complaint filed in the above action was sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff having failed to amend, a judgment, from which he has appealed, was entered against him.

The suit was for the conversion of certain corporate stock. The complaint set up three causes of action, to each of which a demurrer, both general and special, was interposed. The first cause of action alleged that plaintiff, on November 25, 1925, was the owner and lawfully possessed of stock and “that on or about said last mentioned date the defendants unlawfully…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Daggett v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Kraner v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Bradford Investment Co. v. JoostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Hutchings v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Williamson v. JoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wade v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Taylor v. S & M Lamp Co.California Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Sanowicz v. BacalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Corum v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. George Pepperdine Foundation v. PepperdineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

3 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