Scott v. Los Angeles Wholesalers Board of Trade

California Court of Appeal

Scott v. Los Angeles Wholesalers Board of Trade

277 P. 875, 99 Cal. App. 73, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 377

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 21, 1929

DocketDocket No. 3773.

StatusPublished

This text of 277 P. 875 (Scott v. Los Angeles Wholesalers Board of Trade) 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

Scott v. Los Angeles Wholesalers Board of Trade, 277 P. 875, 99 Cal. App. 73, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*74 sum of $1,600 and appropriated the same” to its own use. Other appropriate allegations are made. The purpose of the action is to recover the difference between the partnership indebtedness of $900 and the amount which the partnership otherwise would have received from its sublessees.

The answer denies most of the allegations of the complaint. It denies the alleged assignment from the partnership to the plaintiff. No effort was made by the plaintiff to prove the alleged assignment. It appears that this failure of proof was not a mere oversight, because the plaintiff’s attention was called thereto by the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit on the ground, among others, “that the evidence wholly fails to show any right in this plaintiff to maintain the action.” The plaintiff made no request for permission to supply the missing proof. Since the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the assignment, the court properly found against him on that issue.

It is clear from the record that the plaintiff was not suing in behalf of the partners or the partnership, but only in his individual behalf and that, without proof of the assignment to him, he had no standing to maintain the action. As the judgment must be affirmed on the ground stated, it is unnecessary to consider other alleged grounds for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

. Thompson,. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

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

*74 sum of $1,600 and appropriated the same” to its own use. Other appropriate allegations are made. The purpose of the action is to recover the difference between the partnership indebtedness of $900 and the amount which the partnership otherwise would have received from its sublessees.

The answer denies most of the allegations of the complaint. It denies the alleged assignment from the partnership to the plaintiff. No effort was made by the plaintiff to prove the alleged assignment. It appears that this failure of proof was not a mere oversight, because the plaintiff’s attention was called thereto by the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit on the ground, among others, “that the evidence wholly fails to show any right in this plaintiff to maintain the action.” The plaintiff made no request for permission to supply the missing proof. Since the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the assignment, the court properly found against him on that issue.

It is clear from the record that the plaintiff was not suing in behalf of the partners or the partnership, but only in his individual behalf and that, without proof of the assignment to him, he had no standing to maintain the action. As the judgment must be affirmed on the ground stated, it is unnecessary to consider other alleged grounds for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

. Thompson,. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 P. 875, 99 Cal. App. 73, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-los-angeles-wholesalers-board-of-trade-calctapp-1929.