Legal Opinion

Duntley v. Kagarise

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 1935No. Civ. 9984; Civ. 9985PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDMONDS, J., pro tem.

These cases raise the same question. Each action was brought upon a promissory note given in part payment of the purchase price of certain stock of Inter-City Parcel Service, Inc., a California corporation. The defense in each case is that the notes are void because at the time of the execution and delivery of the notes, the stock was in escrow under a permit of the commissioner of corporations, and that his consent to the sale was not obtained. The trial court decided that the notes are void, and each plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered against him.

Respondent…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Gridley v. TilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Moore v. MoffattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Agnew v. DaughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Walker v. Harbor Realty & Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Northen v. ElledgeArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Miller v. California Roofing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. City of Oakland v. California Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1940

19 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