Phillips v. Goldtree
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Department Two.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
This case was heard and decided by Department Two. On petition of defendants, a hearing in Bank was ordered.
For reasons given in the Department opinion, the judgment is affirmed.
The following is the opinion of Department Two, above referred to, rendered on the fourteenth day of March, 1887:—
McFarland, J.
The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiffs, L. A. Phillips and A. Phillips, were and are partners, doing business under the firm name of Phillips Brothers; that defendants, also partners in business, received from one Souza $729.22 in money to the use of plaintiffs, which…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Byers v. BourretCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Sweeney v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Swamp and Overflowed Land Dis. No. 110 v. FeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.California Supreme Court · 1885
- Mora v. Le RoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by21 opinions
- Valley Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. DriesselIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
- Rudneck v. Southern California Metal & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- A. W. Swope & Son v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
- Gallafent v. TuckerIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
- South Yuba Water & Mining Co. v. RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.