Loftus

These are separate appeals from the judgment, taken within sixty days after its rendition, the evidence being brought up for review by a bill of exceptions. In the case numbered Sacramento 123 the plaintiffs are appellants; in the case numbered. Sacramento 185 defendant Behlow is appellant. As the points presented upon both appeals are identical, they may be considered in one opinion.

There are also appeals from an order of the court made after final judgment directing the receiver to turn over the property to the defendant corporation, the Consolidated Golden Gate and Sulphuret Mining and Development Company.

This litigation has repeatedly been before the court in one or another of the different phases which it has assumed. An extended review of the facts is therefore unnecessary. It will suffice to refer for them to the cases of Behlow v. Fischer, 102 Cal. 208 ; Fischer v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 67 ; Loftus v. Fischer, 106 Cal. 616 ; 114 Cal. 131 ; Fischer v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. 129 .

The amended complaint, upon which the present appeal comes before this court, pleads the formation and existence of a mining partnership, of which plaintiffs were members; pleads the…