Crusoe v. Clark
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern. County and from an order denying a new trial. J. W. Mahon, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action for work and labor as bookkeeper, salesman, and. clerk. Defendant denied any indebtedness, pleaded certain counterclaims, and set up an agreement whereby plaintiff, defendant, and one Shurley entered into a joint enterprise to prospect for mines, in the accomplishment of' which plaintiff was to take charge of defendant’s mercantile business as clerk, bookkeeper, and salesman without pay, and defendant and Shurley were to do the prospecting and share equally with plaintiff in any mineral discoveries. The cause was tried by a jury and plaintiff had a verdict for five hundred…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Moody v. PeiranoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- State v. Van VlackIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- United States v. Certain Parcels of LandDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
- Nylund v. MadsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Warder v. HutchisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.