Schurtz

The action is indebitatus assumpsit, by the plaintiff Schurtz against the defendants Romer and Kerkow. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for a new trial denied, and this appeal is taken by the defendant Romer from the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial.

On a separate appeal taken by the defendant Kerkow, 81 Cal. 244 , this court held that the findings were suffi *476 cient to sustain the judgment. As to the defendant Bomer, there was a cross-complaint asking for affirmative relief, to which there was an answer, raising issues not directly raised under the answer of Kerkow. But as to those issues the court has also fully found, and we are still of opinion that upon all the issues the findings are sufficient to support the judgment. The case will therefore be considered upon the question of whether the evidence supports the findings, and upon the assignment of errors of law.

The facts in the case, briefly stated, are these: The plaintiff Schurtz and the defendant Kerkow were partners, carrying on a saloon and restaurant business at Los Angeles, known as the Vienna Bouffet, under the firm name of Kerkow & Schurtz. The partners fell out, and a suit was brought by…