Bradley v. Harkness
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, Placer County. The following is the complaint in this action: “B. L. Bradley and M. S. Gardner v. Osmyn Harlmess and James Armstrong.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, Placer County. The following is the complaint in this action: “B. L. Bradley and M. S. Gardner v. Osmyn Harlmess and James Armstrong. “ The above named plaintiffs, by their attorneys, complain of the above named defendants, and for cause of action aver, that on the 12th day of April, A. D. 1858, they, together with one Robert M. Trim, since deceased, under the name and style of the Dutch Flat Water Company, became the copartners of the defendant Harlmess, in a certain water ditch situate in Township Humber Four, county and State…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, C. J.
The demurrer to the complaint ought to have been sustained. It proceeds upon two legal theories which are wholly inconsistent. It first alleges a copartnership in general terms in the ditch, which is followed by allegations respecting the management thereof and its rents and profits. It then drops the copartnership theory and adopts that of a tenancy in common in real estate, and avers that the ditch cannot be divided or partitioned without serious injury, and asks that an account of the rents and profits may be taken and the ditch sold, etc. The pleader seems to…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Snow v. AbalosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1914
- South Tule Independent Ditch Co. v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Hayes v. FineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Mudge v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.