Bryce v. Joynt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought against three persons as partners, but was afterwards dismissed as to two of them without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to proceed against the remaining defendant as a member of the firm. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of Mb. Justice McKee.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
In thiscase the only issue raised by the pleadings involved the question: Whether Oren Joynt, the appellant, was at the dates of the transactions in controversy, a co-partner with the other defendants in the firm of Hubard Ward & Company. The transactions with the company took place in March, 1877.
At the trial of the issue, after evidence had been given on behalf of the plaintiffs, tending to prove that on the first of March, 1876, Oren Joynt, George C. Joynt, and Hubard Ward formed a partnership, under the firm name of Hubard Ward & Co., and that in March, 1877, Oren Joynt was still a member *377…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Verzan v. McGregorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Robins v. WardeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- McNeill's Ex'rs v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Abbott v. PearsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cobb v. MartinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Dennis v. KolmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Webster v. San Pedro Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- National Express & Transportation Co. v. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1899