Buckley v. Carlisle
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth District. This action was for the recovery of personal property. The question was submitted to a jury, who found specially that the parties were partners in the property claimed by the plaintiff. The Court ordered judgment to be entered in favour of the defendant with costs; and plaintiff appealed. Walker, for appellant, relied on sect. 144, 5 and 6, of the Practice Act of 1851, and upon sects. 1 and 17 of the same Act.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Heydenfeldt, Justice.
This was an action for the recovery of personal property. The jury found specially that the plaintiff and defendant were partners in reference to the subject-matter of the suit. The mere statement of the finding is sufficient to show that the plaintiff had no right to recover. The property was as rightfully in the possession of the defendant, as it would have been in the plaintiffs; and there being in the bill no allegation of partnership, and no attempt to seek a dissolution and an account, it follows that there was no relief, to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Pueblo v. Verdejo MeléndezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1963
- Mosher v. HelfendCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- De Rigne v. HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- State Ex Rel. Cole v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1927
- Balch v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.