General
MARTIN E. RAY et al., Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDING LOAN COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents
7 Cal. App. 2d 275·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1935·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 9890.
First Appellate District, Division One.
May 31, 1935.]
MARTIN E. RAY et al., Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA HOME BUILDING LOAN COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents.
Ellis, Lyman & Steindorf for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondents.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
Ordinarily mcun4amus will not lie to compel a transfer of corporate stock; a suit in equity is the proper remedy. There is nothing contained in the petition to show that this remedy is inadequate. (Spangenberg v. Western Heavy Hardware & Iron Co., 166 Cal. 284 [135 Pac. 1127].) The petition is denied.