Legal Opinion

Iffland v. John

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 4, 1933No. Docket No. 4635PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KING, J., pro tem.

The action seeks a judgment that plaintiff and defendant formed a copartnership as building contractors; that the copartnership be dissolved; that the defendant be required to account for alleged profits, and ■ that the amount found remaining to the credit of the co-partnership be determined and distributed.

The court below found that there was a copartnership, that a profit of $1200 had been realized, which was held .by defendant, that plaintiff had received $350 only of this sum, and gave him judgment for the remaining sum of $250 as his half of the profits.

Defendant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Clopton v. CloptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. King v. California BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Fales v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Minikin v. HendrixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Dowd v. GlennCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API