Crawford v. Independent Stove Pipe Works
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 instructions excepted to by defendant, and referred to in" the opinion of the court, were as follows: “As to third parties, written agreements of copartnership are not conclusive evidence as to the question who were members of the copartnership.
Read the full summary
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 instructions excepted to by defendant, and referred to in" the opinion of the court, were as follows: “As to third parties, written agreements of copartnership are not conclusive evidence as to the question who were members of the copartnership. There may be secret agreements of copartnership outside of written papers; and if the jury should believe from the evidence that Mrs. Bornheimer furnished all the money for the transaction of the business of the firm, that…
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
— The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that “the Independent- Stove and Pipe Works is a co-partnership, doing business in the city and county of San Francisco, and that the defendants, Jacob Broeder, Francis Bornheimer, and Catherine Bornheimer, were members of and comprised said firm.” And that, on April 15, 1885, said defendants became indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $307, on a balance of account of goods, wares, and merchandise theretofore sold and delivered by plaintiff to said copartnership at its special instance and request; that defendants have not paid said sum or any part…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Oscar Krenz Copper & Brass Works, Inc. v. EnglandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co. v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892