From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Douglass v. Fulda

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1881
59 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1881)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment for the defendant in the Superior Court of Fresno County. Holmes, J.

         The complaint alleges (in each count) the existence of the corporation of which the defendants were stockholders, and that the defendants respectively owned certain shares of stock therein; and that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in a certain aggregate sum of money, in specified proportions, and prayed for judgment against the defendants for the aggregate sum. There was no allegation that the corporation was ever indebted to the plaintiff.

         A petition for hearing in Bank was filed in this case after judgment, and denied.

         COUNSEL

          H. S. Dixon, for Appellant.

          E. C. Winchell, for Respondent.


         OPINION          The Court:

         There was no demurrer to the complaint on the ground that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, or that causes of action were improperly united. These objections to the complaint were, therefore, waived. The general demurrer ought not to have been sustained. The obligation of stockholders to pay their respective proportions of debts of the corporation, incurred while they are stockholders, is direct and primary (Constitution, Art. xi, § 3; C. C., § 322; M. H. C. & M. Co. v. Woodbury , 14 Cal. 266; Prince v. Lynch , 38 id. 528).

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with direction to the Court below to overrule the demurrer.


Summaries of

Douglass v. Fulda

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1881
59 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1881)
Case details for

Douglass v. Fulda

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH DOUGLASS et al. v. LAMARTINE FULDA et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1881

Citations

59 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1881)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Matthiessen

It is not released or diminished by any extension of time given to the corporation, and if the stockholder…

Tatum v. Rosenthal

So held in all actions against stockholders of a corporation. (Faymonville v. McCollough , 59 Cal. 285.…