Tirrell v. Jones

Decided July 1, 1870

California Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh District, Solano County. This is an action upon an alleged contract by which the • plaintiff claims one half the profits made by the defendant in the purchase and sale of a lot of cattle. It was alleged in the complaint that defendant agreed with plaintiff that if he would accompany him to the lower part of the State and lend his assistance and personal services in the purchasing, driving and taking care of a lot of cattle, he (defendant) would furnish all the money necessary in the business without charge therefor, and would market and sell said cattle, and upon tlie completion of the contract would share equally the profits thereof with plaintiff. The case was tried by a jury, who found: First—That there was a contract as set up in the complaint. Second— That there was a profit of $2,018, and that “therefore we find for the plaintiff the sum of $1,009.” The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied; and from the judgment and order denying a new trial this appeal is taken.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1937

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Crockett, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2We discover no error in this record. The testimony of the plaintiff proves the contract substantially as alleged in the complaint; and though the defendant contradicts the plaintiff in most of his material statements in respect to the contract, it is simply a case of conflicting evidence, on the credibility of which it was peculiarly the province of the jury to decide. The charge of the Court, we think, placed the case fairly before the jury, and we perceive no reason for disturbing the verdict. The item for interest on the money invested by the defendant in the enterprise was properly excluded by the Court. As we construe the contract, it was not within the contemplation of the parties that the defendant was to charge interest on the money to be advanced by him.

¶3Judgment affirmed.