Wallace

L.A. Nat'l Bank v. Wallace

Good Law
101 Cal. 478·36 P. 197
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 1, 1894No. 19293California1,406 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Babcock and one Collins owned some nursery stock, which included a large number of orange trees. Wallace was an experienced horticulturist.

The three purchased from Baldwin three hundred acres of land, believed to be well adapted to the growth of oranges. Nothing was paid on account of the purchase of the land, but it was conveyed to Babcock and Wallace, who gave a mortgage upon it to secure the pur *479 chase money. Collins was a banker, and did not wish to be known in the transaction, therefore every thing was in the name of Babcock and Wallace. Babcock and Collins were to put into the enterprise their nursery stock. The orange trees for planting the land purchased were to come from it, and the balance of stock to be sold, and the proceeds applied to the enterprise. Collins was to advance further money to pay expenses to the extent of thirty-five thousand dollars. Wallace was to manage the properties, and to receive a salary of sixty dollars per month. It was thought that it would take six years or perhaps longer to realize sufficient profit from the orchard to pay the purchase money, sixty thousand dollars, to repay Collins the advances made by him, and to pay Babcock and…

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.