Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Cal. 184

Hewlett v. Epstein

California Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-02-20

The defendants were directors of the Henrietta Gravel Mining Company, a corporation organized for mining purposes, and the plaintiff was a stockholder. The act under which the suit was brought will be found in the Statutes of 1880, p. 400.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1896

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-02-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The order of the court sustaining the demurrer in this case must be affirmed. The averment in the complaint that the “defendants as directors of said corporation pretended to have received and expended in the name of, and on behalf of said corporation large sums of money, and incurred large liabilities,” is not sufficient. The averment should have been that they did in fact receive money and incur liability, and the averment in the complaint is not the equivalent thereof.

¶2We would suggest that it would be well for the pleader in an action of this character to set forth the fact that the mining company of which the defendants are the directors had an office or place of business where the itemized account of the affairs of the company should have been posted.

¶3We are of opinion that the act in question is not in violation of any provision of the Constitution.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed.

/63/cal/184 · .json · Public domain