Wilbur v. Hough

49 Cal. 290
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1874
DocketNo. 3,914
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 49 Cal. 290 (Wilbur v. Hough) 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
Wilbur v. Hough, 49 Cal. 290 (Cal. 1874).

Opinions

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

It is alleged in the complaint that the Peoples’ Steam Navigation Company executed to the plaintiffs two promissory notes; that they remain due and unpaid; that the defendants became stockholders of said corporation—or “members of the said corporation,” as the complaint states —and that the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiffs a specified sum of money as their proportion of the indebtedness of the corporation. The defendants’ demurrer having been overruled, they answered, setting up the fact that at the time when the notes were made the plaintiffs were “the duly elected, qualified and acting trustees of said Peoples’ Steam Navigation Company.” The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.

The case comes fully within the doctrine of San Diego v. San Diego and Los Angeles Railroad Company (44 Cal. 112), that the law will not permit one who acts in a fiduciary capacity to deal with himself in his individual capacity; and that express contracts thus made are contrary to public policy and void. The rule is not only sustainable on principle, but is supported by abundant authority.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Grady v. City of Livingston
141 P.2d 346 (Montana Supreme Court, 1943)
Investors' Syndicate v. North American Coal & Mining Co.
153 N.W. 472 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Burnes v. Burnes
137 F. 781 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Wyman v. Bowman
127 F. 257 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Wallace v. Oceanic Packing Co.
64 P. 938 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
In re Disbarment of Evans & Rogers ex rel. Nelson
62 P. 913 (Utah Supreme Court, 1900)
Porter v. Winona & Dakota Grain Co.
80 N.W. 965 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
Doe v. Northwestern Coal & Transportation Co.
78 F. 62 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1896)
Santa Ana Water Co. v. Town of San Buenaventura
65 F. 323 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1895)
Wickersham v. Crittenden
28 P. 788 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Graves v. Mono Lake Hydraulic Mining Co.
22 P. 665 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Smith v. Los Angeles Immigration & Land Co-operative Ass'n
20 P. 677 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Borland v. Haven
37 F. 394 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1888)
Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co.
25 F. 577 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1885)
Hope v. Valley City Salt Co.
25 W. Va. 789 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1885)
Union Trust Co. of New York v. Nevada & O. R.
20 F. 80 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Bassett v. Monte Christo G. & S. M. Co.
15 Nev. 293 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Cal. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilbur-v-hough-cal-1874.