Canfield

Canfield v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
157 Cal. 617·1910 Cal. LEXIS 302·108 P. 706
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 15, 1910L.A. No. 2432.California1,222 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Melvin, J.

Appeals are taken from a judgment and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in-this case and similar appeals are pending in two other eases which are practically identical with this one. They are Los Angeles Nos. 2433 and 2434 and are entitled Doheny v. County of Los Angeles, post, p. 624, [ 108 Pac. 707 ]. The briefs filed are pertinent to the appeals in all three of- these cases, and it is agreed that the decision in this one shall apply to the other two. Plaintiffs seek to recover taxes paid under protest upon the ground that an assessment of stock in a domestic corporation to the individual stockholders is unauthorized and prohibited by the laws of the state of California. The superior court found that the Mexican Petro leum Company was on the first Monday in March, 1906, and thereafter a corporation organized under the laws of this state and having its principal place of business in Los Angeles; that said corporation at that date and ever since has owned a large tract of land in Mexico, upon which many valuable wells producing petroleum are situated; that the corporation carries on its business of marketing and selling petroleum outside of the state of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.