Kritzner

Kritzner v. Warner

Good Law
4 Cal. 232
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 15, 1854California105 words

Lead Opinion

Heydeneeldt, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendants. The contract declared upon

*233 was joint, and if Warner was not a party to it, he, [233] at least, could not be *liable. Nor would' the reception of money by Warner, on account of the work done, be sufficient to fix his liability. It would be, at most, a mere circumstance, which should be left to the jury, tending to show that he may have been a party to the contract, if there was any controversy on that point.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.