Pringle

Pringle v. Aston

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 229·37 Cal. App. 409·174 P. 78
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 1918Civ. No. 2353.California513 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beasly, J.

Pringle sued Aston on a promissory note for three hundred dollars, dated July 17, 1913, and payable thirty days after date. Aston defended, alleging in his answer that he had been employed by Pringle and Richard Hart Keatinge as an engineer, and authorized to secure the services of certain help in his work, whom Pringle and Keatinge were to pay; that he secured the three hundred dollars from Pringle for this purpose, and paid the same to the employees accordingly; that a bank, of which Pringle was the attorney, was a creditor of this partnership between Pringle and Keatinge, but that the bank did not know of Pringle’s connection therewith; that to cover this up and hide Pringle’s connection with this partnership from the bank, Aston gave Pringle the note in suit. Aston also filed a cross-complaint in which he averred that he had performed services for the partnership of the value of about three thousand dollars upon a contingent' fee, to be derived from the sale of the properties upon which he had performed the engineering services, and that Pringle had without cause thwarted the sale, and thus prevented Aston from securing pay for his services. Pringle answered this…

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.