Bullard v. Kinney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of El Dorado. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff on an account assigned to him by Sotzen and. Goodnow, for goods, wares, and merchandise, sold to the defendants. The defendants composed a joint-stock-association, known as the “Columbus Quartz-Mining Company.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of El Dorado. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff on an account assigned to him by Sotzen and. Goodnow, for goods, wares, and merchandise, sold to the defendants. The defendants composed a joint-stock-association, known as the “Columbus Quartz-Mining Company.” While Sotzen and Goodnow, merchants, and partners, were shareholders in the company, they sold to the company, goods, wares, and merchandise, to a large amount. They afterwards, and during the existence of the company, sold their stock to one…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The only question arising in the case is, whether the plaintiff can sue in this form ?
*63There was nothing in the constitution of this company which regulated the remedies of the shareholders, as between themselves; and, therefore, the general law of partnership must prevail. (Collyer, § 1115.) There having been no final settlement of the partnership accounts, and no balance struck, and no express promise on the part of the individual members to pay their ascertained portion of this amount to Sotzen and Goodnow, they could not maintain assumpsit. As they could not sue, it is difficult to see how…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McNamaraNevada Supreme Court · 1867
- Coyle v. Morrisdale Coal Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1922
- Old River Farms Co. v. Roscoe Haegelin Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Stitzinger v. TruittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Hornberger v. OrchardNebraska Supreme Court · 1894