Rivara

Rivara v. Bartolozzi

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 118·52 Cal. App. 36·197 P. 954
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 1921Civ. No. 3096.California475 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to obtain a decree dissolving the partnership existing between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs a decree and the defendants appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure. In their complaint the plain tiffs alleged, among other grounds on which they based their right to a decree, “that at all times since the commencement of said copartnership said business of said copartnership has been conducted at a great loss.” These allegations were denied by the answer. A trial was had on the merits and the trial court made a finding on the above issue in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants attack that finding as not being supported by the evidence. They also claim that the trial court, did not give due consideration to their claim that the partnership was possessed of a valuable leasehold. Before we proceed to consider the point, it should be stated that the plaintiffs Mary Macchetto and A. Rivara were the owners of the building, furnishings, and supplies of a hotel, bar, and restaurant located at 426 Broadway, in San Francisco. On May 13, 1918, they and the defendants executed…

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.