Clark v. Cushing
California Supreme Court
E. G. Feed owned a tract of land in Tehama County, and contracted with James Pierce to farm it, Heed furnishing the land alone, and receiving one-fourth of the crop. Pierce, not having the means to cultivate, entered into a partnership with Clark and Mayhew, they to furnish the materials, and Pierce to do the work, and the three-fourths of the crop belonging to Pierce to he equally divided.
Read the full summary
E. G. Feed owned a tract of land in Tehama County, and contracted with James Pierce to farm it, Heed furnishing the land alone, and receiving one-fourth of the crop. Pierce, not having the means to cultivate, entered into a partnership with Clark and Mayhew, they to furnish the materials, and Pierce to do the work, and the three-fourths of the crop belonging to Pierce to he equally divided. A crop of hay and wheat was planted by Pierce; but before it matured, one Kraft obtained a judgment against him in a Justice’s Court, on which an execution was issued, which was placed in the hands of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The interest of a partner is subject to execution, levy, and sale. (Jones v. Thompson, 12 Cal. 191.) So is the interest of one joint tenant in property held under a joint tenancy. ( Wald-man v. Broder, 10 Cal. 378.) And of one co-owner in property held by tenants in common. (Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 541.) And where the Sheriff levies upon the interest of one of several owners in property he has the right—if necessary to make the levy effective—to reduce all the property to possession; and the fact that he does so is not proof of a conversion. ( White v. Jones, 38 Ill. 169; Atwood v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bernal v. HoviousCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Jones v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Waldman v. BroderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Atwood v. MeredithMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richman v. Bank of PerrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929