In re Castle Dome Mining & Smelting Co.

Good Law
1888 Cal. LEXIS 977·3 Cal. Unrep. 1·18 P. 794
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 25, 1888No. 11,130California739 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of Alameda county dismissing proceedings in involuntary insolvency for want of jurisdiction. The corporation against which the proceedings were commenced was organized under the laws of New York, and had its principal place of business there. Its mine was in Arizona, but its smelting works were situated and operated in Alameda county. No question arises, on this appeal, as to the validity of a discharge in case one shall be granted. The primary *2 object of proceedings in involuntary insolvency is to have the proceeds of the property of the insolvent within the state distributed among the creditors in the manner pointed out in the statute. The granting of a discharge to the insolvent is a separate matter. The property may be taken, and its proceeds distributed among the creditors, although the insolvent be found to be not entitled to a discharge, and never gets it. If, therefore, the court had jurisdiction to distribute the proceeds of the property, its order was erroneous, irrespective of the question whether it could grant a discharge which would be valid out of the state. Now, in the first place, we think there can be no…

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.