Hunter v. Martin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs, and an order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Daingerfield, J. The complaint alleged that the defendants were partners, and doing business under the firm name of Martin & Grorrill, and that they had agreed to purchase certain bricks from the plaintiff, etc.
1Opinion of the Court
Sharpstein, J.:
The denial “ that the defendants ever were or are now partners ” did not raise a material issue upon which it was necessary for the Court to find. It is not denied that they were “doing business under the firm name of Martin & Grorrill,” and it is found that they agreed with the plaintiffs to purchase from them twenty-five thousand bricks, at the price of twelve dollars per thousand. If they entered into that agreement, their liability did not depend upon their being partners.
During the progress of the trial, plaintiffs’ counsel remarked, *366that all the defendants wanted to prove…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Pike v. ZadigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Westcott v. GilmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Hansen v. BurfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Marx Bros. v. Culpepper & DupontSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
- Wallace v. BaisleyOregon Supreme Court · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.