ERRATA IN THE PRINT EDITION
This page was last updated on 04/13/03
If you have found a typo or other error not listed below, please contact us to let us know what it is:
| PAGE (Location) | NOW READS | SHOULD READ |
| 36, 2d paragraph 3d line to 4th | brough a Raven's Cove style suit | brought a Raven's Cove style suit |
| 47 (last line of hypothetical) | minor Joe lacked capacity to enter ... | minor Tom lacked capacity to enter ... |
| 50 | Bacon v. Soule (1922) | Bacon v. Soule (1912) |
| 51 | 0In Barbara A. v. John G. | In Barbara A. v. John G. |
| 81
|
Footnote 4 was omitted in error. Instead there is a
reprint of the last paragraph of footnote 3. Footnote 4 should read
as follows:
|
The corporation was known to Roman law, which had a clearly
developed notion of "artificial personhood". The Romans
used many different words to refer to aggregate entities whose rights were
deemed to be "personal": the municipia, the respublica,
the vici (all municipal or political subdivisions); the librarii,
the fiscales, the censuales, (all guilds, or employment
groups); societas (general word for commercial undertakings of a
number of persons); the sodalitates (social guilds). The word
"corporation" was used in Latin by Tertullian in the 3d Century
and appears first in English in the 16th Century (Oxford English
Dictionary). It can be read as parallel to
"personification".
The Roman corporation enjoyed a primitive form of "limited liability" called an "immunity". However, the Roman corporation lacked the complex internal mechanics which mirror those of our political system: the voting rules, and the concepts of shareholder voting versus board-of-directors voting. These developments are modern; and the law of corporations in the 20th Century is accordingly quite different from what it was in Roman times -- as might be expected.
|
| 179, 2d paragraph | Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) etc. | Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th
1070, 41 C.R.2d 768
The summary given is of Stanley v. Richmond, not of Flatt. |
| 181, practice tip | But in Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, | But in Stanley v. Richmond, supra, |
| 234 - at fn. 8 | this principal | this principle |
| 213 | ___Cal.Rptr.2d____ [parallel cite to Moeller v. Superior Court] | 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 |
| 495 (in the Glossary) | An entry for "beneficiary" should have been included. | In the entry for "Cestui", the following point should be made: The word "cestui" is used as interchangeable with "beneficiary" in this book, and in many of the cases. However a distinction should be made between the person for whose benefit a trust is held who is acquainted with the trustee and who knows of the existence of the trust, and the beneficiary who does not know of the trustee or of the terms of the trust itself. The former is properly called a "cestui", while the term "beneficiary" is broader and would refer to the latter. |
| 1469 (in Forrest v. Baeza) | the Ba-Cel, Inc. | Ba-Cel, Inc. |