Whipley v. Flower
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant as administrator of the estate of J. Beckett, deceased, to recover an amount alleged to be due by Beckett to plaintiff, as partners in the “Diana Saloon,” which the complaint alleges to have been kept by them for the purposes of gaming, and selling liquors, cigars, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant as administrator of the estate of J. Beckett, deceased, to recover an amount alleged to be due by Beckett to plaintiff, as partners in the “Diana Saloon,” which the complaint alleges to have been kept by them for the purposes of gaming, and selling liquors, cigars, etc. The defendant failing to answer, judgment by default was entered against him, from which he appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
An allegation that the plaintiff and the deceased entered into a co-partnership for the purpose of carrying on and conducting, in the city of Sacramento, a saloon known as the Diana Saloon, for the purpose of gaming and selling liquors and cigars, etc., does not raise the presumption that said gaming was necessarily unlawful, or that said saloon was a common gaming-house. It might very well have been one of those saloons licensed by the laws of the State for playing…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brittan v. Oakland Bank of SavingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Barrios & Co. v. G. v. Pettigrew Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924