Williams v. Williams

California Supreme Court

Williams v. Williams

37 P. 784, 104 Cal. 85, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 859

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 1894

DocketNo. 18309

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 P. 784 (Williams v. Williams) 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

Williams v. Williams, 37 P. 784, 104 Cal. 85, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 859 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an action brought by five tenants in common of a mining claim against four other tenants in common in said claim, for a partition of the mining claim and the settlement of a mining copartnership. Judgment was rendered generally for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal_from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone.

We do not see any thing necessary to be noticed in any of the points made by appellants except the last one, to wit, that the findings do not support the judg[86]*86ment, because the former shows that each of the defendants is indebted in a stated amount to the partnership, while the judgment declares that each defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs in the said amount of money, and decrees that the said amount of money owing by each defendant to the partnership be paid to the plaintiffs. It is quite probable that the words “ to the partnership” in the findings were placed there inadvertently; but we must take the record as we find it. Of course, a finding that certain copartners are each indebted in a stated amount to the copartnership does not warrant a judgment that the same amount be paid to the other partners. For this reason, the judgment must be reversed.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the judgment was satisfied before the appeal was taken; but the affidavit on file does not show that fact. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

The judgment is reversed.

Fitzgekald, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

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

McFarland, J.

This is an action brought by five tenants in common of a mining claim against four other tenants in common in said claim, for a partition of the mining claim and the settlement of a mining copartnership. Judgment was rendered generally for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal_from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone.

We do not see any thing necessary to be noticed in any of the points made by appellants except the last one, to wit, that the findings do not support the judg[86]*86ment, because the former shows that each of the defendants is indebted in a stated amount to the partnership, while the judgment declares that each defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs in the said amount of money, and decrees that the said amount of money owing by each defendant to the partnership be paid to the plaintiffs. It is quite probable that the words “ to the partnership” in the findings were placed there inadvertently; but we must take the record as we find it. Of course, a finding that certain copartners are each indebted in a stated amount to the copartnership does not warrant a judgment that the same amount be paid to the other partners. For this reason, the judgment must be reversed.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the judgment was satisfied before the appeal was taken; but the affidavit on file does not show that fact. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

The judgment is reversed.

Fitzgekald, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P. 784, 104 Cal. 85, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-cal-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack