Irvine & Muir Lumber Co. v. Holmes
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County and from an order denying a new trial. J. Q. White, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
This is an action to recover a balance of $494.27 alleged to be due from defendants to plaintiff for goods, wares, and merchandise which, it is alleged, were sold by plaintiff to defendants as copartners in business. Defendant White made no answer. Defendant Holmes answered and denied that he was at any time a copartner of White or that he was ever indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatever.
The cause was tried without a jury and the court found that White and Holmes were associated together in business under the firm name of San Hedrin Summer Resort; that, on August 3, 1909, defendant Holmes…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Murdock v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Quinn v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ewing v. HaywardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- In Re Owl Drug Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1935
- Ohio Electric Car Co. v. Le SageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Orlopp v. Willardson Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Davidson v. TildenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.