Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Cal. 574

Garr v. Redman

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. County of Santa Clara.</p> <p>The plaintiff filed his bill for a settlement and account against J. W. Redman and G. E. Brittain, setting forth in his complaint a contract of partnership, made between the parties in the State of Missouri, to the performance of the conditions of which the parties bind themselves in the penal sum of $50,000, and which recites that the plaintiff had made a certain advance of money for the outfit of defendants to enable them to come to California, in consideration of which the plaintiff was to have one-third of the profits arising from all the labors, speculations, and undertakings of the defendants for two years, the defendants agreeing to devote their labor and attention for that time to the co-partnership ad-adventure, and the defendant Redman agreeing to refund one-third of the outfit.</p> <p>The bill sets forth that the defendants have acquired property, both real and personal, during said partnership, and also since its expiration, by using the proceeds of the property acquired during its existence j and prays for an account, and for judgment for the amount found due.</p> <p>Redman demurred to the complaint as not setting forth any cause of action, there not appearing therein that any co-partnership existed between the parties, and also for a misjoinder of cause of action.</p> <p>The Court below sustained the demurrer, and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s bill. Plaintiff appealed.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1918

7 state decisions

201856186018701880189019001910decided

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 →

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

¶1Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

¶2The Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint.

¶3It was properly filed for an account, whether the parties were technically partners or not. The character of the contract set out in the bill made an account necessary to determine their respective rights.

¶4Nor is there any misjoinder of causes of action. The claim which, it is urged, is single against one of the defendants, forms part of the same subject matter, arising as it does out of the joint contract.

¶5The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/6/cal/574 · .json · Public domain