Kirsch v. Barnes

263 F.2d 692 Bernard KIRSCH, Appellant, v. George BARNES, Milton L. Huber, G. Edward Goodwin, Milton L. Huber & G. Edward Goodwin, A Copartnership Doing Business as Huber & Goodwin, Appellees. No. 15891. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. February 3, 1959. David Livingston, Harold R. Farrow, James R. Mansfield, Robert R. Barton, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Hill & Hill, Clayton R. Janssen, Jr., Eureka, Cal., Philip C. Wilkins, Esther Mix, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees. Before POPE, ORR and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. 1 An original complaint filed in the district court was held not to state a cause of action. An amended complaint was also held defective in that respect. 2 In this opinion we do not reach a consideration of the trial court's ruling as to the failure to plead a cause of action for the reason that we find that the action was not seasonably filed. 3 It is alleged in the amended complaint that prior to October 16, 1952, appellee Barnes acted in a confidential capacity in representing appellant in arranging sales of standing timber belonging to appellant and located in California; that appellees Huber and Goodwin are members…