Evans v. Bidleman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. The complaint stated that the defendants in this ease, Bidleleman, M’Leman, M’Coy, and Laffan were partners, doing business under the name of “ The Pacific Brewery and Distillery Company that the plaintiff lent the defendants, at their request, divers sums of money, amounting in the whole to $735 94, of which there were repaid $100, and the balance, $635, remained due and unpaid, with interest, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco. The complaint stated that the defendants in this ease, Bidleleman, M’Leman, M’Coy, and Laffan were partners, doing business under the name of “ The Pacific Brewery and Distillery Company that the plaintiff lent the defendants, at their request, divers sums of money, amounting in the whole to $735 94, of which there were repaid $100, and the balance, $635, remained due and unpaid, with interest, &c. The writ was served upon Bidleman alone, who answered, and denied the partnership, and denied the alleged loan and all indebtedness. On the trial…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, Chief Justice
Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
The court below erred in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.
There was no privity between the plaintiff and the defendants, on which to establish the relation of debtor and creditor.
The defendant M’Leman had no authority as agent- of Evans to loan the money in controversy to the defendants, and it can only be regarded as an advance by one partner to the partnership concern, for which they are liable to him, while M’Leman alone is liable to the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gilruth v. DecellMississippi Supreme Court · 1894