Curry v. White

51 Cal. 530
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1876·No. No. 5307·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendants, McMullen and Roundtree, are not responsible upon the note in the case, which was made after the [532]*532dissolution of the partnership. Nor are they responsible upon the original account, because the same was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Judgment and order reversed as to -the-defendants, McMullen and Roundtree.

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

Curry v. White, 51 Cal. 530 (Cal. 1876).

51 Cal. 530 (Curry v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steinbach v. Smith
167 P. 189 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Bank of Montreal v. Page
98 Ill. 109 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)