History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hewlett v. Epstein
63 Cal. 184
Cal.
1883
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The order of the court sustaining the demurrer in this case must be affirmed. The averment in the complaint that the “defendants as directors of said corporation pretended to have received and expended in the name of, and on behalf of said corporation large sums of money, and incurred large liabilities,” is not sufficient. The averment should have been that they did in fact receive money and incur liability, and the averment in the complaint is not the equivalent thereof.

We would suggest that it would be well for the pleader in an action of this character to set forth the fact that the mining company of which the defendants are the directors had an office or place of business where the itemized account of the affairs of the company should have been posted.

We are of opinion that the act in question is not in violation of any provision of the Constitution.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Hewlett v. Epstein
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 20, 1883
Citation: 63 Cal. 184
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.