Settembre v. Putnam
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Clara County. The plaintiff filed a complaint setting up the facts found by the Court, and also some other facts not material to be reported.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Clara County. The plaintiff filed a complaint setting up the facts found by the Court, and also some other facts not material to be reported. He prayed in his complaint for an account to be taken by the Court of the value of all the ores removed from the mine by the defendants and of all sums of money which they had received and which' had in any manner come to their use from the mine, and also of all charges and expenditures on account thereof by any and all of the partners, as well the plaintiff as the defendants, and each of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sawyer, J.:
We think, upon the facts found, that there existed between the plaintiff and defendants one of those associations, so common in this State, formed for the purpose of carrying on mining operations, and combining some of the incidents of ordinary trading partnerships, and some of the incidents of tenancies in common—a species of qualified partnerships, often called mining partnerships. The two defendants, together with one Brodie, were in possession of a portion of the “ Rancho Yerba Buena y Socayre,” in the County of Santa Clara, upon which they supposed they had…
2Cited by34 opinions
- Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sandfoss v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Doyle v. BurnsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Bissell v. FossSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.