Legal Opinion

Moran v. McInerney

California Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1900No. S.F. No. 1374PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

The action was brought against defendant Mclnemey to dissolve a copartnership, and for an accounting. Plaintiff also asked that certain property be declared to be partnership property, and be distributed between plaintiff and defendant as partners. Mclnemey answered and denied the existence of the partnership and all allegations made by plaintiff in respect thereto. In this state of the pleadings a trial was had and an interlocutory decree was entered. Ho findings were made, but it was decreed that plaintiff and defendant did prior to May, 1870, enter into and form a copartnership for the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bates v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Coward v. ClantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Freeman v. DonohoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Felis v. FelisNevada Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API