Holmes

Irvine & Muir Lumber Co. v. Holmes

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 472·26 Cal. App. 453·147 P. 229
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1915Civ. No. 1098.California1,934 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an action to recover a balance of $494.27 alleged to be due from defendants to plaintiff for goods, wares, and merchandise which, it is alleged, were sold by plaintiff to defendants as copartners in business. Defendant White made no answer. Defendant Holmes answered and denied that he was at any time a copartner of White or that he was ever indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatever.

The cause was tried without a jury and the court found that White and Holmes were associated together in business under the firm name of San Hedrin Summer Resort; that, on August 3, 1909, defendant Holmes notified plaintiff that he would no longer be responsible for goods furnished to said resort, or for goods sold to White; that the balance due on the portion of said account that had accrued prior to said third day of August, 1909, was the sum of $373.20, and rendered judgment against defendant for that amount. Defendant Holmes appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant presents but two objections to the judgment calling for notice; 1. That the evidence failed to establish a co-partnership ; 2. That the court erred in its application of…

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.