Bristow

Bristow v. Ferguson

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 3d 823·175 Cal. Rptr. 571·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1985
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1981Civ. 20375California1,894 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

Defendants, Thomas A. Ferguson, Walter Hutton, Alonzo A. Plumb, and Frank C. Vasquez, appeal from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after a jury rendered a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged fraud and conspiracy in his removal from a general partnership in which all the parties were involved. The new trial motion was granted as to the conspiracy cause of action on the sole ground that part of a jury instruction “could quite likely have misled” the jury.

The jury was instructed that: “[11 1] A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who join together for the purpose of committing a wrongful act which causes damage to the plaintiff. [If 2] As long as two or more persons agree to perform a wrongful act, the law places liability for the resulting damages on all of them, regardless of whether they actually commit the wrong themselves. Conspiratorial conduct implicates all who agree to the plan to commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out. Furthermore, the requisite concurrence in the plan may be inferred from the nature of the acts done, the relation of the parties and the interests of the conspirators. Tacit…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.