Herman

Herman v. Hecht

Good Law
116 Cal. 553·1897 Cal. LEXIS 587·48 P. 611
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 23, 1897S. F. No. 293California2,360 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action is brought by plaintiff against Abraham E. Hecht and fourteen other defendants to recover from them, as stockholders in the Pacific Jute Manufacturing Company, a California corporation, *555 their proportion of a promissory note made by said corporation to the Farmers and Merchants’ Bank of Los Angeles, dated April 20,1881, for the sum of forty thousand dollars, payable fifteen daj^s after demand, with interest at a specified rate. Said note was indorsed by William Scholle, J. Brandenstein, and I. Cahn.

The defendant’s answer, in addition to denials which put in issue the averments of the complaint, alleged in substance that in 1879 the said corporation borrowed from said Farmers and Merchants’ Bank of Los Angeles the sum of forty thousand dollars, and gave its note for said sum. That upon the maturity of that note a new note was given by said corporation for the same sum. That on or about March 10, 1880, said corporation sold and conveyed all its property and assets to the Oakland Bag Company, a copartnership composed of William Scholle, Israel Cahn, and Joseph Brandenstein; that said copartnership assumed all the liabilities of the corporation existing at the date…

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.