Phillips v. Mires

California Court of Appeal

Phillips v. Mires

83 P. 300, 2 Cal. App. 274, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 265

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 25, 1905

DocketCiv. No. 40.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 P. 300 (Phillips v. Mires) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phillips v. Mires, 83 P. 300, 2 Cal. App. 274, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 265 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

Action for money had and received by defendant for plaintiff’s use. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals upon a bill of exceptions.

*275 The action was originally commenced in a justice’s court. An answer was filed, which was considered by the court and all parties to the proceedings as sufficient to authorize the certification of the case to the superior court, under section 838 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the superior court proceeded to the trial of the action upon the same theory. It is apparently assumed by both parties that the case is within the jurisdiction of this court, and for the purposes of the decision we will so assume. The sole -contention of appellant is that a partnership existed between plaintiff and defendant, and the rule that one partner may not sue his copartner at law, where no accounting or settlement of the partnership affairs has been had, is invoked. In our opinion, no partnership relation is shown. The mere fact that a rancher agrees with another that he may milk the cows upon a ranch belonging to the former and for his labor in their care and milking shall have one-half of the proceeds of the cream sold, and one-half of any calves born while he is so caring for' them, and, in addition, shall feed the skimmed milk to hogs owned by both parties equally, does not establish a partnership.

There was no error in the rendition of the judgment, and the same is affirmed.

Gray, P. J., and Smith, J., concurred.

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

ALLEN, J.

Action for money had and received by defendant for plaintiff’s use. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals upon a bill of exceptions.

*275 The action was originally commenced in a justice’s court. An answer was filed, which was considered by the court and all parties to the proceedings as sufficient to authorize the certification of the case to the superior court, under section 838 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the superior court proceeded to the trial of the action upon the same theory. It is apparently assumed by both parties that the case is within the jurisdiction of this court, and for the purposes of the decision we will so assume. The sole -contention of appellant is that a partnership existed between plaintiff and defendant, and the rule that one partner may not sue his copartner at law, where no accounting or settlement of the partnership affairs has been had, is invoked. In our opinion, no partnership relation is shown. The mere fact that a rancher agrees with another that he may milk the cows upon a ranch belonging to the former and for his labor in their care and milking shall have one-half of the proceeds of the cream sold, and one-half of any calves born while he is so caring for' them, and, in addition, shall feed the skimmed milk to hogs owned by both parties equally, does not establish a partnership.

There was no error in the rendition of the judgment, and the same is affirmed.

Gray, P. J., and Smith, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 P. 300, 2 Cal. App. 274, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-mires-calctapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack