Clark v. Jones

California Supreme Court

Clark v. Jones

49 Cal. 618

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 4,497

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Cal. 618 (Clark v. Jones) 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

Clark v. Jones, 49 Cal. 618 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendant in the transaction with the Chinamen acted © not as a member of the Dardanelles Company, but as a member of the Oro Company, upon the books of which latter company the $1,900 were entered and accounted for as received for that company. Under these circumstances the action against Jones, as sustaining the relation of tenant in common with the plaintiff, cannot be maintained.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.

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

By the Court:

The defendant in the transaction with the Chinamen acted © not as a member of the Dardanelles Company, but as a member of the Oro Company, upon the books of which latter company the $1,900 were entered and accounted for as received for that company. Under these circumstances the action against Jones, as sustaining the relation of tenant in common with the plaintiff, cannot be maintained.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Cal. 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-jones-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack