Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes 32 Cal. App. 802

← Cases

Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes

32 Cal. App. 802 Court Second Appellate District. Decision date 1916-11-16 Docket Civ. No. 1510 English

Delivered by CONREY, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 802
[Civ. No. 1510.
Second Appellate District.
November 16, 1916.]
PROVIDENT GOLD MINING COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. DORA L. HAYNES, Appellant.

Headnote

Foreign Corporation—Doing Business in California—Stockholders’' Liability.—Judgment and order refusing a new trial affirmed on the authority of Provident Gold Mirnng Company v. Haynes, 173 Cal. 44 .
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Gavin W. Craig, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Provident Gold Mining Company v. Hwynes, 173 Cal. 44 .
p. 803
Thomas C. Job, and Joseph E. Hannon, for Appellant.
Robert Young, for Respondent.

In this action plaintiff seeks to enforce a liability of defendant and appellant Dora L. Haynes and others as stockholders of the Manhattan Securities Company, an Arizona corporation, for an indebtedness of that corporation. Judgment having been rendered against the respective defendants in several amounts, some of the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The judgment against Dora L. Haynes being for less than two thousand dollars, her appeal is to this court. The appeals in each instance are from the judgment and from orders denying motions of the defendants for a new trial. The appeals of the other defendants to the supreme court involved the same questions upon which the appeals of Dora L. Haynes depend. Those appeals were decided by the supreme court July 11, 1916, and the judgments and orders were affirmed as to them. (Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes, 173 Cal. 44 , [ 159 Pac. 155 ].) Upon the authority of that decision, the judgment and order appealed from herein are affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cases cited