Legal Opinion
Tyler v. Wilson
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 13, 1943No. Civ. 3073PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
On July 1, 1940, the plaintiffs leased certain mining property to one Pendell, the lease providing for the payment of a minimum monthly royalty of $250. On August 1, 1940, Pendell, by written agreement, assigned this lease to Blake Wilson and D. S. Bushnell, who assumed and agreed to perform all the covenants of the lease. Blake Wilson and D. S. Bushnell were in possession of the property and, as the court found, operated the same as a general partnership of which they were the sole partners until early in September, 1940.
On September 5, 1940, a certificate of limited partnership was filed in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Treff v. GulkoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Ellingson v. Walsh, O'Connor & BarnesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Lesser v. PominCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holzman v. De EscamillaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Bre DDR BR Whittwood Ca LLC v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- BRE DDR BR Whittwood CA v. Farmers & Merchants etc.California Court of Appeal · 2017