Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 105

Clark v. Gridley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

Clark and Perkins, who were partners, doing business in the city of San Francisco, on the first day of April, 1865, entered into an agreement in writing with Gridley, who resided in the city of Marysville, by which Gridley undertook to purchase wool in Marysville and the country adjacent thereto, and ship the same to Clark and Perkins.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1928

3 state decisions

10187418801890190019101920decided

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 →

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

¶11. The defendant’s notice of his intention to move for. a new trial was not served or filed within the time required by law, and the motion was properly denied on this ground.

¶22. The appeal from the judgment was not taken within sixty days after the judgment was rendered; and, under section nine hundred and thirty-nine of the Code of Civil Procedure, we cannot on this appeal review the decision on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence.

¶33. The plaintiffs and defendant were clearly partners in the venture to which the contract between them related; and the partnership accounts, though kept in the books of the plaintiffs, were not intermingled with other accounts, but were separately stated; and the evidence shows that the defendant not only had access to the books when he desired, but knew that the partnership accounts were so kept, and made no objection on the ground that they were not kept in separate books. Under these circumstances the books were properly admitted in evidence.

¶4The other points made by counsel for the appellant are without force, and need not be specially noticed. The appeal is without merit.

¶5Order and judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages. Remittitur forthwith.

¶6Mr.. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.

/49/cal/105 · .json · Public domain