Quackenbush v. Sawyer
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment, in the District Court, City and County of San Francisco. J. B. Mhoon, Referee. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 1, McKee, J.:
We do not regard the action in this case, as does counsel for the appellant, as an action for the settlement of a partnership account.
In substance it is alleged, in the complaint in the case, that the parties had severally advanced certain sums of money in purchasing the “ circus property ” mentioned in the complaint; that they then entered into an. agreement that the defendant should take and keep possession of the property, and cause it to be used and employed by circus companies or managers for the joint benefit of himself and the plaintiff in equal shares; that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Post v. KimberlyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1812
- McMillan v. Bull's Head BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
- Heyland v. BadgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Wolcott v. MeechNew York Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by9 opinions
- State ex rel. Ratliffe v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1919
- Vietti v. NesbittNevada Supreme Court · 1895
- DeTray v. HigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Shrum v. SimpsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- Noonan v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.