Evans v. Bailey

4 P. 1089, 66 Cal. 112, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 703
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 20, 1884
DocketNo. 8,481
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 4 P. 1089 (Evans v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Evans v. Bailey, 4 P. 1089, 66 Cal. 112, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 703 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

The Court

-1. The cause of action, as stated in the complaint, is for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, the Cal[113]*113ifornia Fruit and Meat Shipping Company, viz: cattle to the amount of $5,253.60, with a credit of $750, and that said defendant undertook and promised to pay said sum with interest. The plaintiff was the only witness sworn on his behalf: from his testimony it appears that one hundred and thirty-three head of the cattle were delivered to said company, to be by it slaughtered, and the meat sold on commission. The proof does not correspond with the allegation; the evidence does not sustain the finding in that regard.

2. The question of ultra vires, raised by the People’s Ice Company, is not tenable. It does not appear that it was not within the scope of the powers of the People’s Ice Company to acquire or hold stock of the California Fruit and Meat Shipping Company, under any circumstance, or for any purpose ; and it does not appear under what circumstances the stock was acquired or held. (Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 578.)

3. The books of the company were competent evidence to prove the number of shares which had been subscribed for and issued at the time the alleged indebtedness arose, and who were the shareholders.

4. The articles of incorporation, dated in 1877, would not necessarily show who were the shareholders, or in what amounts respectively, during the time from December, 1878, to February, 1879; therefore, no error is manifest in ruling out the articles.

For the error above noted, the judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roberts v. Prisk
284 P. 984 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Todd v. Temple Hospital Assn., Inc.
273 P. 595 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Zierath v. Claggett
188 P. 837 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Eidinger v. Sigwart
110 P. 521 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Hyde v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
61 Misc. 518 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Knowles v. Sandercock
40 P. 1047 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Brown v. Board of Education of City of Pomona
37 P. 503 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Kennedy v. Cal. Sav. Bank
35 P. 1039 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Stockton Savings Bank v. Staples
32 P. 936 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Borland v. Haven
37 F. 394 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 P. 1089, 66 Cal. 112, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-bailey-cal-1884.