From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell Development Company v. Marshall

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Nov 16, 1917
35 Cal.App. 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1958.

November 16, 1917.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County. W. H. Thomas, Judge Presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Childers Bruce, for Appellant.

Herbert L. Iasigi, for Respondent.


This is an action for an unpaid subscription to the capital stock of respondent corporation. The appellant interposed a general demurrer to the second amended complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and, the appellant standing on the issue of law and refusing to answer, the respondent had judgment.

The pleading of the respondent alleges an ordinary demand for the payment of the subscription and the appellant's refusal to comply with the demand; but there is no allegation that the respondent has attempted to follow the provisions of section 331 of the Civil Code and those coming after it. In this state, where the contract of subscription for stock is silent as to the time and manner of payment, calls for unpaid subscriptions are placed in the same class with assessments upon paid-up shares, and the above-mentioned sections of the code provide a complete scheme for the making of collections of each of the two kinds of obligations. Suits cannot be commenced until the procedure there laid down has been exhausted, and in such a suit the complaint must show that the procedure has been followed. ( Los Angeles Athletic Club v. Spires, 166 Cal. 173, [ 135 P. 298]; Imperial Land S. Co. v. Oster, 34 Cal.App. 776, [ 168 P. 1159].)

The judgment is reversed, with directions to the trial court to sustain the demurrer.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Bell Development Company v. Marshall

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Nov 16, 1917
35 Cal.App. 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
Case details for

Bell Development Company v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:BELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. W. A. MARSHALL…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District

Date published: Nov 16, 1917

Citations

35 Cal.App. 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
169 P. 717

Citing Cases

Vegetable Oil Corp. v. Twohy

art, and has always been ready, able and willing to issue and deliver to defendant upon payment therefor by…

Coast Amusements, Inc., v. Stineman

Under an unbroken line of decisions a call or assessment under section 331 of the Civil Code was necessary in…