Legal Opinion
Luce v. Sutton
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 19, 1953No. Civ. 15340PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
In an action for the price of meat sold and de. livered, plaintiffs obtained judgment against both defendants. Defendant Trondhjem alone appeals.
Questions Presented
1. Was there evidence of agency? 2. Are the findings that defendants were copartners, which findings admittedly are unsupported, fatal to a recovery on the agency theory?
Pleadings
In the caption of the complaint defendants were described as “Verne C. Sutton and Sam Trondhjem, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name and style of The Big Hat Cafe.” * The first count of the complaint alleged such…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Hill v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance v. ElliottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Geary Street, Park & Ocean Railroad v. RolphCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Fleming v. DolfinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Associated Creditors' Agency v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Gardiner v. GaitherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Nels E. Nelson, Inc. v. TarmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.