Stuart v. Adams
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
This is an action to recover $2,795.18 upon contracts for labor, and for money advanced.
The defendants are mining copartners doing business under the firm name of the “ Alabama Bar Mining and Canal Company.”
Plaintiff performed labor for them at their mine, and a portion of the time acted in the capacity of superintendent. In this action he recovered a joint judgment for $2,311.16.
This is an appeal from the judgment and order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
Appellants insist that, as members of a mining partnership, they are only liable pro rata for the liabilities of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jones v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Taylor v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Hudepohl v. Liberty Hill Consolidated Mining & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- McConnell v. DenverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dellapiazza v. FoleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Rice v. Van WhySupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Sturm v. UlrichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Vietti v. NesbittNevada Supreme Court · 1895
- Bielenberg v. HigginsMontana Supreme Court · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.