Ehrman v. Rosenthal
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action is in form for money had and received. Judgment passed for plaintiffs, and from that judgment and from the order denying a new trial defendants appeal. The facts, concerning which there is little or no dispute, are as follows:
Plaintiffs were partners engaged in the wholesale grocery business in the city and county of San Francisco. Defendants were partners engaged in the *493wholesale boot and shoe business in the same place. In the month of August, 1883, J. Rosenstein, a merchant engaged in business in Idaho, came to San Francisco to purchase a stock of merchandise. He held the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kreutz v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Logan v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bertone v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Hotle v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Canepa v. Sun Pacific, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- Utilities Insurance v. StuartNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
- Aetna Life Insurance v. WilsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.