Decker v. Howell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. This was an action upon a promissory note for three thousand dollars, made in the name of “ Howell & Haynes ” to R. M. Turner, and by Turner indorsed to plaintiffs. Howell and Turner made default.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. This was an action upon a promissory note for three thousand dollars, made in the name of “ Howell & Haynes ” to R. M. Turner, and by Turner indorsed to plaintiffs. Howell and Turner made default. Haynes answered separately, setting up, among other things, that “ Howell & Haynes ” was a partnership formed for the sole and exclusive purpose of mining, and that Howell had given the note without Haynes’ knowledge or authority, and in fraud of his rights. On the trial the Court below found the facts substantially as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Niles, J.:
The defendants, Howell and Haynes, entered into an agreement to engage together in a mining adventure, uuder the firm name of “Howell & Haynes,” for the purpose of purchasing, holding, and working certain mines. The profits and losses were to be shared equally. Howell, a practical miner, was to contribute his skill and personal services in the conduct of the business; Haynes was to contribute naoney. The mine was purchased by and conveyed to the partners. A note of the firm was given for a portion of the purchase money, and afterwards paid without objection by either.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Duryea v. BurtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Skillman v. LachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by11 opinions
- Schneider & Davis v. SansomTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Sturm v. UlrichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Congdon v. OldsMontana Supreme Court · 1896
- Quinn v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Hawkins v. Spokane Hydraulic Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.