Grant v. Bannister
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County refusing a new trial. G. W. Nicol, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action was brought for a partnership accounting and a division of the partnership assets. Judgment passed for defendants; plaintiff moved for a new trial, and from the order denying this motion, but not from the judgment, he appeals. The attention of this court is not directed to any alleged errors of law occurring during the progress of the trial, but the consideration upon appeal is limited to a contention against the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings.
Oral negotiations between the parties resulted in their entering into articles of copartnership for the general…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mitau v. RoddanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Hendy v. MarchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Thompson v. BowmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Mulford v. Le FrancCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Hill v. McKayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ellis v. MihelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Slavich v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. MinnetteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Tennant v. WildeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Hagge v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.