Rabe v. Wells & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. This action was brought, October 7th, 1851, against Thomas C. Wells, H. Willes, and Lucien Skinner, of Boston, as partners and bankers in San Francisco, doing business under the firm of Wells & Co., of whom the plaintiff complained that the defendants were indebted to him for money deposited in trust, payable on demand, to wit, $2278, payment of which defendants had refused, &c., after demand made, &c.; and prays for judgment, &c.,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. This action was brought, October 7th, 1851, against Thomas C. Wells, H. Willes, and Lucien Skinner, of Boston, as partners and bankers in San Francisco, doing business under the firm of Wells & Co., of whom the plaintiff complained that the defendants were indebted to him for money deposited in trust, payable on demand, to wit, $2278, payment of which defendants had refused, &c., after demand made, &c.; and prays for judgment, &c., and that publication issue against the non-resident parties. The sheriff returned “served personally on defendant, Wells,…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Wells, Justice, concurred.
*151The question of notice as to the dissolution of the partnership, was properly left to the finding of the jury under the charge of the court.
In the issue presented by the pleadings, it would have been proper to introduce evidence to show that the dissolution was not bona fide, but it does not appear how the evidence which was rejected would have tended to that result.
Error which is relied on must be shown clearly and affirmatively.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Henderson v. MorrisOregon Supreme Court · 1873
- Morgan v. HuggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Gage Bros. v. Rogers SistersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892