Legal Opinion
Schefski v. Anker
California Supreme Court
Decided October 31, 1932No. Docket No. S.F. 14427PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Both plaintiff Schefski and defendant Anker appeal from a judgment in an action brought by plaintiff for the dissolution of an alleged partnership and for an accounting. The Bank of Italy was made a purely nominal defendant and does not appeal. Both appeals have been presented on one transcript.
The facts in reference to the alleged partnership are as follows: In 1926, Schefski was a contractor engaged in acting as a foreman in the construction of various kinds of buildings. Anker desired to invest his money in building operations. Negotiations between the two resulted in a written…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fredendall v. ShraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Putman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.California Supreme Court · 1930
- National Brass Works v. WeeksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Weavering v. SchneiderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
3Cited by15 opinions
- Roman Catholic Welfare Corp. v. City of PiedmontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Petroleum Midway Co. v. ZahnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Ellsworth v. EllsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Chiarodit v. ChiaroditCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Rossi v. ZappaterraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.