Langer v. Wood

California Court of Appeal

Langer v. Wood

29 P.2d 795, 136 Cal. App. 782, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 20, 1934

DocketDocket No. 8206.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 P.2d 795 (Langer v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langer v. Wood, 29 P.2d 795, 136 Cal. App. 782, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, P. J.

This action is based on section 3 of article XII of the Constitution and section 322 of the Civil Code (as of April, 1929) for the recovery of stockholders’ liability. Judgment went for plaintiff.

The one point raised on appeal may be simply stated and its solution needs no detail as to facts. That point is: *783 Are those who subscribed for stock prior to but in contemplation of incorporation, and who are named in the articles of incorporation as such subscribers, stockholders of the corporation under the stockholders’ liability law between the date of incorporation and the date of issuance of the corporation commissioner’s permit to issue the stock subscribed ?

The trial court answered this question in the affirmative, and we think correctly. The point is not new and has been passed on more or less directly in the following California cases: Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 [28 Pac. 110] , United States Nat. Bank v. Stiller, 216 Cal. 324 [14 Pac. (2d) 78], Coast Amusements, Inc., v. Stineman, 115 Cal. App. 746 [2 Pac. (2d) 447], Western Pac. Paper Co., Inc., v. Hollywood Topics, 113 Cal. App. 305 [298 Pac. 35], and Stewart v. Ingleberg, 207 Cal. 595 [279 Pac. 661].

Judgment affirmed.

Craig, J., and Archbald, J., pro tem., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 22, 1934, and an application by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 20, 1934.

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

STEPHENS, P. J.

This action is based on section 3 of article XII of the Constitution and section 322 of the Civil Code (as of April, 1929) for the recovery of stockholders’ liability. Judgment went for plaintiff.

The one point raised on appeal may be simply stated and its solution needs no detail as to facts. That point is: *783 Are those who subscribed for stock prior to but in contemplation of incorporation, and who are named in the articles of incorporation as such subscribers, stockholders of the corporation under the stockholders’ liability law between the date of incorporation and the date of issuance of the corporation commissioner’s permit to issue the stock subscribed ?

The trial court answered this question in the affirmative, and we think correctly. The point is not new and has been passed on more or less directly in the following California cases: Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 [28 Pac. 110] , United States Nat. Bank v. Stiller, 216 Cal. 324 [14 Pac. (2d) 78], Coast Amusements, Inc., v. Stineman, 115 Cal. App. 746 [2 Pac. (2d) 447], Western Pac. Paper Co., Inc., v. Hollywood Topics, 113 Cal. App. 305 [298 Pac. 35], and Stewart v. Ingleberg, 207 Cal. 595 [279 Pac. 661].

Judgment affirmed.

Craig, J., and Archbald, J., pro tem., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 22, 1934, and an application by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 20, 1934.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P.2d 795, 136 Cal. App. 782, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langer-v-wood-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack