Stilphen v. Ware
45 Cal. 110
Opinion
It is conceded that irrespective of the judgment rendered against the corporation itself, the cause of action stated in the complaint is barred by limitation, and if this be so, it is clear that the judgment did not of itself operate to prolong the time in which an action might be brought against the defendants as stockholders of the corporation. (Davidson v. Rankin, 34 Cal. 503; Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 168; Young v. Rosenbaum, 39 Cal. 646.)
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Stilphen v. Ware, 45 Cal. 110 (Cal. 1872).
45 Cal. 110 (Stilphen v. Ware) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ellis v. Capps
269 P. 597 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1928)
Ellsworth v. Bradford
199 P. 335 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Chambers v. Farnham
187 P. 732 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Douglas v. Orth
185 P. 1005 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Gold v. Paynter
44 S.E. 920 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1903)
Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'n
94 N.W. 171 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)
Kilton, Warren & Co. v. Providence Tool Co.
48 A. 1038 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
Stebbins v. Scott
52 N.E. 535 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Redington v. Cornwell
27 P. 40 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Hyman v. Coleman
23 P. 62 (California Supreme Court, 1890)