Skip to main content
· 5/7/1891

Schofield v. Doray

Citations

  • 89 Cal. 55
  • 26 P. 606
  • 1891 Cal. LEXIS 769

Syllabus

<p>Mining Corporations — Duty op Directors — Office of Corporation — Posting Reports — Penalty — Insufficient Defense .— Chapman v. Doray, ante, p. 52, followed and affirmed.</p> <p>Id. — Second Action for Penalty — Former P.ecovery — Amendment of Answer. — Each failure of the directors to post the monthly reports is a delinquency for which an action may be maintained as it occurs, and the recovery of judgment for one failure cannot be pleaded as a bar to a second action for a subsequent failure; and it is not error to refuse to allow the answer in the second action to be amended so as to plead a recovery in the first action for a previous delinquency.</p> <p>Id.—Failure to Sue for Previous Delinquency — Single Penalty.— If the stockholders of a mining corporation forbear to sue till after severed failures of the directors to post the monthly reports have occurred, only one penalty can be recovered up to the time such forbearance ceases and the suit is brought.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting interpretation of contract that emphasized the lack of a serial comma, where the interpretation otherwise was implausible and not supported by the English language
  • where there are two reasonable interpretations of a settlement agreement, the trial court must evaluate parole evidence in determining the meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Belcher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.