Brown v. Fresno Raisin Co.

California Supreme Court

Brown v. Fresno Raisin Co.

35 P. 639, 101 Cal. 222, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1010

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 31, 1894

DocketNo. 18206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 P. 639 (Brown v. Fresno Raisin Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Fresno Raisin Co., 35 P. 639, 101 Cal. 222, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1010 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

De Haven, J.

The defendant recovered a judgment for one hundred and four dollars and forty-five cents, balance due upon a counterclaim, and the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff was a member of the firm of Brown and May, and there was evidence from which the court was justified in finding that the raisins delivered by the defendant to that firm were sold and delivered upon the individual credit of the plaintiff, and this being so the finding of the court that such goods were sold and delivered by defendant to the plaintiff, and that the counterclaim of defendant was established, cannot be disturbed ; for it is well settled that a partner may contract on his own account, and make himself alone liable, for the property bought for the copartnership if the vendor choose to accept such individual liability. (1 Bindley on Partnership, 2d Am. ed., 179-92; Sylvester v. Smith, 9 Mass. 119.)

[223]*223We discover no error in the rulings of the court in relation to the admission of evidence.

Judgment and order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De Haven, J.

The defendant recovered a judgment for one hundred and four dollars and forty-five cents, balance due upon a counterclaim, and the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff was a member of the firm of Brown and May, and there was evidence from which the court was justified in finding that the raisins delivered by the defendant to that firm were sold and delivered upon the individual credit of the plaintiff, and this being so the finding of the court that such goods were sold and delivered by defendant to the plaintiff, and that the counterclaim of defendant was established, cannot be disturbed ; for it is well settled that a partner may contract on his own account, and make himself alone liable, for the property bought for the copartnership if the vendor choose to accept such individual liability. (1 Bindley on Partnership, 2d Am. ed., 179-92; Sylvester v. Smith, 9 Mass. 119.)

[223]*223We discover no error in the rulings of the court in relation to the admission of evidence.

Judgment and order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P. 639, 101 Cal. 222, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-fresno-raisin-co-cal-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack