Sweat

Sweat v. Jameson

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 39·296 P. 111
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1931Docket No. 4229.California2,525 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The plaintiff had judgment in this action against the J. W. Jameson Corporation, from which judgment the corporation appeals.

The record shows that on January 14, 1924, the following instrument was executed by the Jameson Oil Company, and delivered to the plaintiff in this action, to wit:

At the* conclusion of the trial the court made its findings, from which we summarize the following: That the plaintiff and A. L. Bailey were associated and engaged in business as traffic managers and rate experts; that the writing which we have set forth was duly executed and delivered to Bailey & Sweat; that Bailey & Sweat accepted the employment and proceeded to audit the various freight bills of the defendant for shipments made over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, and that the audit disclosed overcharges in the sum of $5,006.38; that the firm of Bailey & Sweat, as partners, was dissolved on June 1, 1924; that on or about the date of the dissolution of said partnership, the plaintiff gave notice of such dissolution to the defendant, by causing a letter announcing such dissolution to be inclosed in a sealed envelope, with the postage prepaid thereon, and directed to the defendant at…

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.