Bank of California v. White
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe First Judicial District, Storey County. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion. I. Even under tbe evidence of defendants, the contract constituted them partners in tbe special enterprise between themselves, though White was to have all the profits, as £here was a joint venture, with a joint liability to loss.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe First Judicial District, Storey County. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion. I. Even under tbe evidence of defendants, the contract constituted them partners in tbe special enterprise between themselves, though White was to have all the profits, as £here was a joint venture, with a joint liability to loss. But, if not partners between themselves, they were so as to the world at large, or at least that portion of the world which contributed by money, labor, or material, to the advancement of the joint enterprise; and it can make no difference that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Hawley, J.:
On the fourth day of May, 1876, the defendants, W. S. White, Owen Eraser, David Crosby, R. J. Breed, and B. H. Carrick, entered into a written contract with A. Hanak and I. Bateman, to build a,nd complete the building in Virginia City known as the International Hotel.
While said contract was in force, the plaintiff loaned and *375advanced to the defendant White the sum of twelve tliou-'sand two hundred and thirty-eight dollars, which was used in and about the construction of said building.
The money was loaned to White individually, but the loan was made with knowledge of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. MoynihanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Van Eman v. StanchfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
- Strader v. LambethCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1847
3Cited by3 opinions
- Carmack v. DrumWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Brenner v. LuthSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Quinn v. QuinnNevada Supreme Court · 1932