Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes

California Court of Appeal

Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes

162 P. 1181, 32 Cal. App. 802, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 361

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 16, 1916

DocketCiv. No. 1510.

StatusPublished

This text of 162 P. 1181 (Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes) 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

Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes, 162 P. 1181, 32 Cal. App. 802, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

In this action plaintiff seeks to enforce a liability of defendant and appellant Dora L. Haynes and others as stockholders of the Manhattan Securities Company, an Arizona corporation, for an indebtedness of that corporation. Judgment having been rendered against the respective defendants in several amounts, some of the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The judgment against Dora L. Haynes being for less than two thousand dollars, her appeal is to this court. The appeals in each instance are from the judgment and from orders denying motions of the defendants for a new trial. The appeals of the other defendants to the supreme court involved the same questions upon which the appeals of Dora L. Haynes depend. Those appeals were decided by the supreme court July 11, 1916, and the judgments and orders were affirmed as to them. (Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes, 173 Cal. 44, [159 Pac. 155].) Upon the authority of that decision, the judgment and order appealed from herein are affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

In this action plaintiff seeks to enforce a liability of defendant and appellant Dora L. Haynes and others as stockholders of the Manhattan Securities Company, an Arizona corporation, for an indebtedness of that corporation. Judgment having been rendered against the respective defendants in several amounts, some of the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The judgment against Dora L. Haynes being for less than two thousand dollars, her appeal is to this court. The appeals in each instance are from the judgment and from orders denying motions of the defendants for a new trial. The appeals of the other defendants to the supreme court involved the same questions upon which the appeals of Dora L. Haynes depend. Those appeals were decided by the supreme court July 11, 1916, and the judgments and orders were affirmed as to them. (Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes, 173 Cal. 44, [159 Pac. 155].) Upon the authority of that decision, the judgment and order appealed from herein are affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 P. 1181, 32 Cal. App. 802, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provident-gold-mining-co-v-haynes-calctapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack