Scott v. Goodin
Before: James
Synopsis
Corporations—Sale op Stock—Contract to Repurchase—Option.— A contract executed by the seller of corporate stock, whereby he ■agrees to purchase the stock at an advance on or before twelve months from date, is not a bilateral agreement for the resale and purchase of the stock, but gives the buyer an option which he must exercise within the time limited.
JAMES, J.
Plaintiff has appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial made after judgment rendered in favor of defendant. The record presented consists of the judgment-roll and a statement of the evidence.
For a cause of action, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that defendant, in April, 1905, induced her to purchase six thousand shares of the capital stock of a mining corporation at the price of twenty-five cents per share, representing to her that the company owned valuable mining.property in Mexico; that defendant agreed that he would repurchase the stock “within twelve months thereafter” at the price of thirty cents per share; that the representations made by defendant as to the character and value of the mining property were false and
[179]
untrue and made for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff; that the shares of stock purchased were of no value. It was further alleged that defendant had not repurchased the stock, and that prior to the commencement of the action plaintiff had demanded that he pay her the amount of thirty cents per share therefor as agreed.
We need not consider whether a cause of action for damages, arising out of the alleged false representations made by defendant through which plaintiff was induced to pay her money for worthless stock, is sufficiently stated in the complaint, because at the trial plaintiff relied wholly upon the written contract made by defendant wherein he agreed to repurchase the stock at an advance of five cents per share. A copy of that contract was set out as an exhibit attached to plaintiff’s complaint and was admitted by defendant to have been executed by him. It reads as follows:
“Los Angeles, April 18, 1905.
“I hereby agree to purchase from Mary B. Scott the following certificates of stock in the Eureka Mining and Milling Co. and pay her for same thirty (30) cents a share on or before twelve (12) months from this date:
‘ ‘ Certificate No. 21 for 2,000 shares.
“Certificate No. 28 for 4,000 shares.
“It is understood and agreed that during this period, Mary B. Scott accepts no dividends declared by the company on this stock without voiding this agreement.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)