Hale

Hale v. Giesea

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 425·84 Cal. App. 430·258 P. 407
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 13, 1927Docket No. 5817.California1,022 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover on six separate promissory notes. All defendants answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting without a jury. The trial court made findings of fact in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment based thereon the defendants have appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Bach note was dated March 26, 1923; each note was for a different amount; each note was payable to a different payee; but otherwise each note was in the same general form and was a demand note bearing interest at the rate of six per cent payable in San Francisco, and contained a provision for an attorney fee if suit were brought, and each note was signed “Cosmopolitan Producing Company by Dick Wilbur, manager.”

It is contended by the defendants that they were not copartners. It was alleged in the complaint that they were copartners, and the defendants appeared as copartners, filed an answer as copartners, and did not deny that they were copartners. The denial that was interposed was a denial as to what business, if any, the copartnership undertook. The defendants assert that they were joint adventurers. That…

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.