Ray v. California Home Building Loan Co.

46 P.2d 996, 7 Cal. App. 2d 275
California Court of Appeal·Decided May 31, 1935·No. Civ. No. 9890·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

7 Cal.App.2d 275 (1935)

MARTIN E. RAY et al., Petitioners,
v.
CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDING LOAN COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents.

Civ. No. 9890.

California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division One.

May 31, 1935.

Ellis, Lyman & Steindorf for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondents.

The Court.

[1] Ordinarily mandamus will not lie to compel a transfer of corporate stock; a suit in equity is the *276 proper remedy. There is nothing contained in the petition to show that this remedy is inadequate. (Spangenberg v. Western Heavy Hardware & Iron Co., 166 Cal. 284 [135 P. 1127].) The petition is denied.

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

Ray v. California Home Building Loan Co., 46 P.2d 996, 7 Cal. App. 2d 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

46 P.2d 996 (Ray v. California Home Building Loan Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

California Teachers Assn. v. Nielsen
87 Cal. App. 3d 25 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)
Hagan v. Fairfield
194 Cal. App. 2d 240 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)