Graham v. Franke

California Supreme Court

Graham v. Franke

38 P. 455, 4 Cal. Unrep. 899, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1253

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1894

DocketNo. 15,483

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 P. 455 (Graham v. Franke) 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

Graham v. Franke, 38 P. 455, 4 Cal. Unrep. 899, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1253 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, C.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered against him, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Two points only are made for a reversal. They are, (1) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objections of defendant; and (2) that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for a non-suit at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence.

The complaint contains two counts. The first is based upon a written contract executed by the parties, and dated April [900]*90026, 1890, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant certain vegetable products, and defendant agreed to purchase and pay for the same certain stipulated prices. The second count is for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered. In each count it is alleged that defendant had not made full payment, and judgment is asked for the amount still due and unpaid. The evidence objected to by the defendant at the trial, and the admission of which is assigned as error, was to the effect .that on April 4, 1890, the plaintiff and one Worthington became partners in the business of raising vegetables, and that this partnership continued up to the time of the trial; and the objection was that the evidence was immaterial and irrelevant to any issue raised by the pleadings. Conceding that this objection was well taken, still it is evident that the defendant was in no way prejudiced by the ruling. The evidence did not, to any extent, tend to fix, establish or enlarge the liability of defendant.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and after he had rested his case, defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground “that the evidence shows that the plaintiff, A. L. Graham, is not the real party interested, and that this suit should not and cannot be maintained by him alone; that the evidence shows that the transaction, the matter of the suit, is a partnership debt.” The motion was denied, and we see no error in the ruling. The plaintiff’s contract with the defendant was in writing, and under section 369 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he was authorized to sue upon it without joining Worthington, even if it was partly made for the benefit of the latter. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.

We concur: Temple, C.; Haynes, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

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

BELCHER, C.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered against him, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Two points only are made for a reversal. They are, (1) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objections of defendant; and (2) that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for a non-suit at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence.

The complaint contains two counts. The first is based upon a written contract executed by the parties, and dated April [900]*90026, 1890, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant certain vegetable products, and defendant agreed to purchase and pay for the same certain stipulated prices. The second count is for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered. In each count it is alleged that defendant had not made full payment, and judgment is asked for the amount still due and unpaid. The evidence objected to by the defendant at the trial, and the admission of which is assigned as error, was to the effect .that on April 4, 1890, the plaintiff and one Worthington became partners in the business of raising vegetables, and that this partnership continued up to the time of the trial; and the objection was that the evidence was immaterial and irrelevant to any issue raised by the pleadings. Conceding that this objection was well taken, still it is evident that the defendant was in no way prejudiced by the ruling. The evidence did not, to any extent, tend to fix, establish or enlarge the liability of defendant.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and after he had rested his case, defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground “that the evidence shows that the plaintiff, A. L. Graham, is not the real party interested, and that this suit should not and cannot be maintained by him alone; that the evidence shows that the transaction, the matter of the suit, is a partnership debt.” The motion was denied, and we see no error in the ruling. The plaintiff’s contract with the defendant was in writing, and under section 369 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he was authorized to sue upon it without joining Worthington, even if it was partly made for the benefit of the latter. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.

We concur: Temple, C.; Haynes, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P. 455, 4 Cal. Unrep. 899, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-franke-cal-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack