TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dennis v. Superior Court

M. DENNIS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Dennis v. Superior Court, 27 P. 1031 (Cal. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 17, 1891
Citations
27 P. 103191 Cal. 5481891 Cal. LEXIS 1128
Headnotes
Corporations—Liability op Stockholders—Obligation Arising upon Contract — Construction of Code — Jurisdiction of Justice’s Court.— The personal liability of the stockholder of a corporation for his proportion of the indebtedness of the corporation is an obligation arising upon contract, within the meaning of section 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving original jurisdiction toa justice’s court in actions arising upon contract for the recovery of money, when the amount claimed is less than three hundred dollars.
Summary
Application for writ of prohibition against the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The nature of the case appears in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court.

We think that the personal liability of a stockholder of a corporation for his proportion of the *549 indebtedness of the corporation is an obligation arising upon contract, within the meaning of-section 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving original jurisdiction to a justice’s court in actions arising upon contract for the recovery of money, when the amount claimed is less than three hundred dollars.

The court of appeals of Maryland had before it the question of the nature of such a liability upon the part of a stockholder, in Norris v. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 492 , and in that ease it was held to be an obligation so far ex contractu as fairly to come within the spirit and intent of a statute intended to facilitate the recovery of judgments in suits “ when the cause of action is a contract, whether in writing or not, or whether express or implied.”

We are satisfied with the conclusion there reached.

It follows that the application for the writ applied for herein must be denied, and it is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1892: 11894: 11898: 11903: 11908: 11909: 11910: 11922: 11936: 218922026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kennedy v. California Savings Bank31 P. 846 (Cal. 1892)
  2. Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Katz102 P. 946 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Cook v. Justice's Court61 P.2d 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Walker v. Woodside164 F. 680 (9th Cir. 1908)
  5. Erickson v. Richardson86 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1936)
  6. Foreign Mines Development Co. v. Boyes180 F. 594 (1910)

Most recent

  1. Erickson v. Richardson86 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1936)
  2. Cook v. Justice's Court61 P.2d 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
  3. Whittier v. Visscher209 P. 23 (Cal. 1922)
  4. Foreign Mines Development Co. v. Boyes180 F. 594 (1910)
  5. Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Katz102 P. 946 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
  6. Walker v. Woodside164 F. 680 (9th Cir. 1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Norris v. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 492 (1871) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list