Hislop

Richardson v. Hislop

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 440·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 436·293 P. 168
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 10, 1930Docket No. 7442.California4,519 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burroughs, J.

On July 14, 1922, the plaintiff Eri H. Richardson and the defendants James W. His-lop and A. C. Myers entered into an agreement of partnership under the name of Clay Glow Tile Company by which they agreed to engage in the business of buying, selling and retailing goods, wares and merchandise for cash, on a commission basis or otherwise, but more especially to deal in clay and tile products, including terra cotta and ornamental tile of all descriptions; together with any other articles or products appertaining or belonging thereto.

The partnership was to continue for one year unless sooner terminated as provided in said agreement and hereinafter set forth. It was further agreed that the capital stock of said copartnership was $1000, to be subscribed for and distributed as follows: Eri H. Richardson, sixty per cent; James W. Hislop, twenty per cent; A. C. Myers, twenty per cent. It was further provided that Richardson should be the manager of the business and should do his best to dispose of the entire output of a certain clay and tile plant, said output to be contracted for with James W. Hislop, A. C. Myers, W. A. Hislop, L. J. Hislop and C. E. Cummings, a partnership doing…

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.