Grant

Grant v. Bannister

Good Law
160 Cal. 774·1911 Cal. LEXIS 577·118 P. 253
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1911Sac. No. 1814.California3,139 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

This action was brought for a partnership accounting and a division of the partnership assets. Judgment passed for defendants; plaintiff moved for a new trial, and from the order denying this motion, but not from the judgment, he appeals. The attention of this court is not directed to any alleged errors of law occurring during the progress of the trial, but the consideration upon appeal is limited to a contention against the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings.

Oral negotiations between the parties resulted in their entering into articles of copartnership for the general purposes of quarrying, working, buying, and selling building stone, but for the especial purpose of so quarrying, working, and selling marble from the Gold Spring Marble Mining claim in Tuolumne County, California. The partnership was to continue for the term of ten years under the directions of the defendant partners, Bannister and Hearfield. Plaintiff was to cause to be conveyed the Gold Spring Marble Mining claim, with its water-rights, to the partners in the proportions of “one half undivided” to himself; “one quarter undivided” to Bannister, and “one quarter undivided” to Hearfield. The two…

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.