Evans v. Bidleman

California Supreme Court

Evans v. Bidleman

3 Cal. 435

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 435 (Evans v. Bidleman) 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

Evans v. Bidleman, 3 Cal. 435 (Cal. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Murray, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.

The court below erred in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.

There was no privity between the plaintiff and the defendants, on which to establish the relation of debtor and creditor.

The defendant M’Leman had no authority as agent- of Evans to loan the money in controversy to the defendants, and it can only be regarded as an advance by one partner to the partnership concern, for which they are liable to him, while M’Leman alone is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

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

Murray, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.

The court below erred in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.

There was no privity between the plaintiff and the defendants, on which to establish the relation of debtor and creditor.

The defendant M’Leman had no authority as agent- of Evans to loan the money in controversy to the defendants, and it can only be regarded as an advance by one partner to the partnership concern, for which they are liable to him, while M’Leman alone is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-bidleman-cal-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack