Callahan

Callahan v. Danziger

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 250·32 Cal. App. 405·163 P. 65
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 27, 1916Civ. No. 2066.California1,517 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

James, J.

Plaintiff, the respondent here, sued appellant Danziger, E. A. Wiltsee, J. M. Kent, and the Lost Hills Syndicate, the latter being alleged to be, upon the information and belief of the plaintiff, a corporation. The suit was to recover $1,170.73 for services performed and money paid out on account of the defendants. Service was made upon this appellant and Kent, who answered in the case, and upon trial being had before a jury a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount prayed for, upon which verdict judgment was thereafter entered. This appeal is taken by Danziger from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

It is urged, under the contention principally argued on behalf of the appellant, that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. A recovery was had under the claim that the individual defendants were copartners. The business in which it appears they were engaged was that of exploring prospective oil territory. The plaintiff did not show that the Lost Hills Syndicate was a corporation, but the evidence offered went principally in the direction of establishing a co-partnership existing between Kent, Danziger, and…

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.