People v. Leonard
Citations
- 106 Cal. 302
- 39 P. 617
- 1895 Cal. LEXIS 604
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Embezzlement—Evidence—Proof of Corporation db Facto.—Where a defendant is charged with embezzlement of moneys as an officer, manager, and servant of a banking corporation “duly created, organized, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California,” proof that such corporation existed as a corporation de facto, claiming in good faith to be a corporation organized under the laws of California, and doing business as such, is sufficient to sustain the indictment.</p> <p>Id.—Sufficiency of Articles of Banking Corporation—Failure to State Amount of Capital Stock Subscribed—Change of Code__ The articles of incorporation of a banking corporation executed and filed prior to the amendment of 1876, of section 290 of the Civil Code, were not required to contain a statement of the number of shares of the capital stock subscribed, or by whom.</p> <p>Id._Proof of Incorporation—Instruction—Modification—Conflict.— An instruction to the effect that the prosecution must prove a corporation duly formed, organized, existing, and doing business under the laws of the state of California, is not in conflict with a modification thereof to the effect that if the jury find that the corporation existed as a de facto corporation at the time of the alleged offense, it was a corporation duly formed, organized, existing, and doing business, nor in conflict with another instruction solely relating to the sufficiency of proof of a corporation defacto.</p> <p>Id._Effect of Proof of Corporation de Facto.—When the proof shows such facts as the code designates as sufficient to constitute a corporation de facto, it is for all the purposes of the action to be treated as a corporation duly formed, and the legality of its organization cannot be questioned.</p> <p>Id._Liability of Officers of de Facto Corporation—Embezzlement by Officer de Facto.—Any officer who in fact acts as an officer of a corporation de facto is subject to all the liabilities and penalties imposed u
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Foster v. United StatesSixth Circuit· 1910-04-05· cited 48×
- People v. ArmstrongCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-10-22· cited 38×
- People v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1984-05-17· cited 35×
- People v. SehornCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-04-10· cited 26×
- Worden v. United StatesSixth Circuit· 1913-04-11· cited 23×
- Fitts v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1935-10-29· cited 22×
- Gibbs v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1930-12-15· cited 19×
- State v. SiersNebraska Supreme Court· 1976-11-17· cited 18×
- Eastham v. HoltWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1897-09-14· cited 14×
- People v. ThreestarCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1985-05-01· cited 5×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bruner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-12-12· cited 56×
- People v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-03-30· cited 46×
- In re GannonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-05-22· cited 46×
- State v. GossSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1878-12-30· cited 10×
- Fortenberry v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1879-01-15· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.