Ashton

Ashton v. Heydenfeldt

Good Law
124 Cal. 14·1899 Cal. LEXIS 929·56 P. 624
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1899S. F. No. 1266California1,467 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Action to recover possession of “shares of stock.” Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and, plaintiffs having declined to amend, judgment of dismissal was entered, and plaintiffs appeal.

The property sought to be recovered is described thus: “Four thousand six hundred and seventy-four shares of the capital stock of the Zeila Mining Company, a California corporation,” which stock, it is alleged, was the property of said Solomon Heydenfeldt at the time of his death, and ever since has been the property of his estate; that on October 23, 1893, the superior court made a final decree of distribution of said estate, “that pursuant to said decree said stock was distributed to the defendant Elizabeth A. Heydenfeldt, and was thereafter by her transferred, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, without any valuable consideration to the defendant Sunshine 0. Heydenfeldt, and said stock has ever since been detained by them from the possession of plaintiffs.”

*16 It is further alleged “that said decree of distribution was reversed by the supreme court of the state of California, and the matter of said distribution remanded to this honorable court for…

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.