Campodonico v. Grossini
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. On July 19, 1880, the defendants Grossini and Tiscornia, being copartners, in consideration of the sum of $3,050, admitted plaintiff as a member of the firm. Of such consideration the sum of $631.33 was paid in money, and a memorandum due bill given for the balance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. On July 19, 1880, the defendants Grossini and Tiscornia, being copartners, in consideration of the sum of $3,050, admitted plaintiff as a member of the firm. Of such consideration the sum of $631.33 was paid in money, and a memorandum due bill given for the balance. Prior to the commencement of this action, Grossini and Tiscornia assigned such due bill to the defendant Spinetti, who assigned it to the defandant Childs. Soon after entering the partnership, the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
The note assigned by the defendants Grossini and Tiscornia to Spinetti was affected by fraud, and was very properly ordered to be cancelled. But as it was not negotiable without offset, and Spinetti had assigned it before action brought, we cannot see that he was either a proper or necessary party to this suit. If the note had been negotiable, and Spinet-ti had assigned it to an innocent purchaser, the case would have been different, and it would then have been proper to have made him a party. Again, no judgment for money was asked for against Spinetti or his assignee, Childs—nor would any…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Corbin v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- American Bond & Mortgage Co. v. LindsayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920