Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MYRICK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OLIVER, Administrator, etc., v. BLAIR and Others.
    
    No. 8809;
    April 30, 1885.
    6 Pac. 847.
    Decree—Allegations of Complaint to Support.—Where a complaint alleges that certain defendants were the owners of stoek, and that they transferred the same for certain purposes to another, who, in turn, in fraud and violation of the agreement under which he received the stock, transferred the same to the appellant, who, having full knowledge of the facts, threatened to sell such stock, a decree as to him, enjoining the sale or the offering for sale of such stock, and directing that he return" and deliver the same in specified amounts to persons named, is justified by the allegations of the complaint.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
    W. S. Goodfellow for appellant; W. M. Pierson, A. Compte, Jr., and Joseph Napthaly for respondent.
    
      
      For subsequent opinion, see 8 Pac. 612, post, p. 564.
    
   MYRICK, J.

This appeal is by the defendant Coubrou' alone. He was made a party to the suit, and was served v summons, but did not answer. The decree, as to him joined the sale, or offering for sale, of forty thousand j hundred and twenty shares of certain stock, and directe t he return and deliver the said stock in specified amounts to persons named. Coubrough alone is interested in the question before us. We have only to see if the decree is beyond the allegations and prayer in the pleadings. The complaint alleged that Collyeott, Adams, and Shoenbar were the owners of certain stock, and that for certain purposes, under agreement, they transferred the same to Blair, who, in violation of the agreement, transferred the same to Coubrough, the latter being Blair’s agent, and having full knowledge of the purposes for which it had been transferred to Blair; and that Coubrough threatened to sell the stock. We think sufficient appears in the complaint which, taken as confessed by Coubrough, justified the decree.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Thornton, J.