Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)

Citation
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Parent Document
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1953-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

688 chars
“As hereinbefore stated, appellant gave his written consent to the transfer of half the shares to Crummey and thereby, surely at least Crummey was authorized to sign the notice. Furthermore, appellant was not injured but favored by the notice. It gave him more than 30 days to cure his default under his option agreement and he did nothing about it; he took no action nor did he make any offer to anyone to perform, despite the fact that he was then woefully in default. Whether signed by the original shareholders or their transferees, the notice conformed to the requirements of the option agreement and appellant should have taken some action within the more than 30 days allowed him.”