Kent

Kent v. Danziger

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 57·50 Cal. App. 225·194 P. 724
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1920Civ. No. 3427.California985 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

In substance, the facts out of which this controversy arose are as follows: In the year 1910, plaintiff, defendant Danziger, and E. A. Wiltsee associated themselves under the fictitious name of Lost Hills Syndicate in a joint venture for the purpose of locating and developing certain prospective oil lands in what is known as the Lost Hills district in Kern County, California. It was agreed between the parties that Danziger and Wiltsee were to advance and pay all moneys required in the operations to be conducted. Kent was to contribute no money, but in consideration of devoting his time and service to the business, he was to receive a share of any profits derived from the venture. The association employed W. IT. Callahan as superintendent, who brought an action against the Lost Hills Syndicate, J. M. Danziger, E. A. Wiltsee, and J. M. Kent, as copartners doing business under such fictitious name, to recover for services rendered, and obtain a judgment against all of them. This judgment on appeal was affirmed, and thereafter Danziger, in consideration of the full amount thereof by him paid to Callahan, caused it to be assigned to George W. Price. An execution was issued thereon 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.