Griggs v. Clark

23 Cal. 427
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 23 Cal. 427 (Griggs v. Clark) 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
Griggs v. Clark, 23 Cal. 427 (Cal. 1863).

Opinions

Baldwin, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, J. concurring.

It seems to us that the report of the referee, and the consequent judgment of the Court, is erroneous in this: That it decrees that the defendants, as surviving partners, are liable for the full amount found to be due of assets collected, or in the hands of these survivors, without regard to the indebtedness of some* $7,500 found to be due in Missouri, on account of the firm operations. We understand that the partnership was formed in Missouri, and comprehended, as well transactions in that State, as in this; and a full settlement should involve and conclude as well transactions there as here. The administrator of the deceased partner, therefore, is not entitled to a decree, irrespective of the firm debts there ; and the survivors would seem to be entitled to retain in their own hands, money, or assets, sufficient to pay this indebtedness, whether due in Missouri, or on contracts made there or here. But if we are mistaken in this, it is obvious that the report of the referee, which seems to be the whole predicate of the decree of the District Court, does not furnish any ground for such decree; for the referee says that it is impossible for him to ascertain the true state of the accounts, or make a full settlement in this respect, in the absence of information as to the amount of the Missouri debts, or by whom they were paid.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Related

Reyher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2012 COA 58 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012)
Busick v. Stoetzl
264 Cal. App. 2d 736 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Prince v. Harting
177 Cal. App. 2d 720 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Lewis v. Firestone
338 P.2d 953 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Vangel v. Vangel
291 P.2d 25 (California Supreme Court, 1955)
Vangel v. Vangel
254 P.2d 919 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Kirkpatrick v. Smith
248 P.2d 534 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Jacobson v. Wikholm
172 P.2d 878 (California Supreme Court, 1946)
Lyon v. MacQuarrie
115 P.2d 594 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Hoge v. George
200 P. 96 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1921)
Dovey v. Dovey
146 N.W. 923 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
Eilers Music House v. Reine
133 P. 788 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Rassaert v. Mensch
120 P. 1072 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Ruggles v. Buckley
175 F. 57 (Sixth Circuit, 1910)
Condon v. Callahan
115 Tenn. 285 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
Rowell v. Rowell
99 N.W. 473 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1904)
Wisner v. Field
91 N.W. 67 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Comstock v. McDonald
85 N.W. 579 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Toland v. Earl
61 P. 914 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Maynard v. Richards
46 N.E. 1138 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Cal. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griggs-v-clark-cal-1863.