TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Great Western Power Co. v. McColgan

GREAT WESTERN POWER COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation) v. CHARLES J. McCOLGAN, as Franchise Tax Commissioner, etc.

Great Western Power Co. v. McColgan, 125 P.2d 42 (Cal. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 29, 1942
Docket
No. S. F. No. 16526
Judges
Shenk
Citations
125 P.2d 4220 Cal. 2d 8961942 Cal. LEXIS 352

Opinion of the Court — Shenk

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

SHENK, J.

This case presents facts similar to those involved in the case of San Joaquin Ginning Co. v. McColgan, ante, p. 254 [ 125 P. (2d) 36 ], this day decided.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company owned all of the stock (with the exception of two per cent of the preferred stock) of the plaintiff, Great Western Power Company. The latter, by agreement with its principal stockholder, elected to dissolve on March 8, 1936. It effected a statutory dissolution and distributed its assets to its stockholders. After liquidation and dissolution, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company continued the conduct of the plaintiff’s business in the same manner and with the use of the same properties as theretofore conducted by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had paid its franchise tax for the taxable year 1936. It was dissolved on July 30, 1936. It commenced an action for a refund of five-twelfths of the tax. The plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appealed.

The questions to be determined are the same as those decided in the San Joaquin Ginning Company case. Those questions turn on whether the liquidation and dissolution of the plaintiff amounted to a reorganization, merger or consolidation within the meaning of section 13 (k) of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act. (Stats. 1933, p. 869, as amended; Stats. 1937, p. 2331; Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act *897 8488.) All of the contentions of the plaintiff are answered by our decision in San Joaquin Ginning Company v. McColgan, supra, and on the authority of that case the judgment is reversed.

Gibson, C. J., Curtis, J., Edmonds, J., and Carter, J., concurred.

Traynor, J., did not participate herein.

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied May 28, 1942. Traynor, J., did not participate therein.

How later courts describe this case

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

1964: 119642026peak 1964 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Heating Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Franchise Tax Board228 Cal. App. 2d 290 (1964)

Most recent

  1. Heating Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Franchise Tax Board228 Cal. App. 2d 290 (1964)

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
San Joaquin Ginning Co. v. McColgan, 125 P.2d 36 (Cal. 1942) 16

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