California Partnership Law and the Uniform Partnership Act (Concluded)

Austin Tappan Wright
California Law Review
Vol. 9, No. 5 (Jul., 1921), pp. 391-424
DOI: 10.2307/3473643
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3473643
Page Count: 34
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

California Partnership Law and the Uniform Partnership Act (Concluded)
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Notes and References

This item contains 83 references.

[Footnotes]
  • 170
    Irvine and Muir Lumber Co. v. Holmes (1915) 26 Cal. App. 453.
  • 171
    Mission Fixture Co. v. Potter (1915) 26 Cal. App. 691.
  • 172
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Walstrom v. Hopkins (1883) 103 Pa. 118
    • Kirwan v. Kirwan (1834) 2 C. & M. 617, 4 Tyrwh. 491, 3 L. J. Ex. 187, 149 Eng. Rep. R. 907.
  • 173
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Burdick, pp. 163-165.
    • The successor does not become a guarantor: Stover v. Stevens (1913) 21 Cal. App. 261, 131 Pac. 332.
  • 174
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Quinn v. Quinn (1889) 81 Cal. 14
    • 22 Pac. 264
    • Von Schmidt v. Huntington (1850) 1 Cal. 55
    • Fischer v. Superior Court (1893) 98 Cal. 67, 32 Pac. 875.
  • 175
    The British Act excludes him, Partnership Act of 1860, § 38.
  • 178
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • People ex. rel. Allen v. Hill (1860) 16 Cal. 114
    • Miller v. County of Kern (1902) 137 Cal. 516, 70 Pac. 549
    • Cooley v. Miller (1914) 168 Cal. 120, 136, 142 Pac. 83
    • Andrade v. Superior Court (1888) 75 Cal. 459, 17 Pac. 531.
  • 177
    Paragraph XXXIII, 9 California Law Review, 220
  • 178
    Gray v. Bonnell (1912) 19 Cal. App. 243, 125 Pac. 355
  • 179
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Meraw v. McInerney (1900) 129 Cal. 29, 61 Pac. 575
    • Arnold v. Loomis (1915) 170 Cal. 95, 148 Pac. 518.
  • 180
    Conroy v. Woods (1859) 13 Cal. 626, 73 Am. Dec. 605
  • 181
    Crane Co. v. Dryer (1908) 9 Cal. App. 290, 98 Pac. 1072
  • 182
    This reference contains 10 citations:
    • Duryea v. Burt (1865) 28 Cal. 569
    • Crane v. Morrison (1876) 4 Sawy. 138, Fed. Cas. No. 3355
    • Duryea v. Burt, supra, n. 182
    • Leedom v. Ham (1897) 5 Cal. Unrep. 633, 48 Pac. 222
    • Duryea v. Burt, supra, n. 182
    • Shinn v. Macpherson (1881) 58 Cal. 596
    • Sterling v. Hanson (1851) 1 Cal. 479
    • Dupuy v. Leaven- worth (1861) 17 Cal. 263
    • McCauley v. Fulton (1872) 44 Cal. 355
    • Bates v. Babcock (1892) 95 Cal. 479, 30 Pac. 605, 29 Am. St. Rep. 133, 16 L. R. A. 745
  • 183
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Rapple v. Dutton (1915) 226 Fed. 430
    • Conroy v. Woods, supra, n. 180
    • Crane v. Morrison, supra, n. 182
  • 184
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Von Schmidt v. Huntington, supra, n. 174
    • Swanson v. Wilsen (1910) 13 Cal. App. 389, 110 Pac. 336
  • 185
    Karrick v. Hannaman (1897) 168 U. S. 328, 42 L. Ed. 509, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 92.
  • 186
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Crosby v. McDermitt (1857) 7 Cal. 147
    • Goldsmith v. Sachs (1882) 17 Fed. 726
  • 187
    This reference contains 5 citations:
    • paragraph XL, 9 California Law Review, 312 (at subsection 2)
    • Solomon v. Kirkwood (1884) 55 Mich. 256, 21 N. W. 336
    • Lapenta v. Lettari (1899) 72 Conn. 377, 42 Atl. 730, 77 Am. St. Rep. 315
    • Hannaman v. Karrick (1893) 9 Utah 236, 33 Pac. 1039
    • 24 Yale Law Journal, 626, n. 8
  • 188
    Hughes, Admiralty (2d ed.), p. 338.
  • 189
    Behlow v. Fischer (1894) 102 Cal. 208, 36 Pac. 509
  • 190
    This reference contains 10 citations:
    • notes 91 to 94, 9 California Law Review, 213
    • Meyers v. Merillion (1897) 118 Cal. 352, 50 Pac. 662
    • Soule v. Hayward (1850) 1 Cal. 345
    • Behlow v. Fischer, supra, n. 189
    • Loftus v. Fischer (1896) 114 Cal. 131, 45 Pac. 1058
    • Humburg v. Lotz (1906) 4 Cal. App. 438, 88 Pac. 510
    • Spencer v. Barnes (1914) 25 Cal. App. 139, 142 Pac. 1088
    • Shinn v. Macpherson, supra, n. 182
    • Black v. Merrill (1884) 65 Cal. 90, 3 Pac. 113
    • Wallace v. Sisson (1893) 4 Cal. Unrep. 34, 33 Pac. 496.
  • 191
    paragraph XXVIII, 9 California Law Review, 212.
  • 192
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • King v. Wise (1872) 43 Cal. 628
    • Bailey v. Fox (1889) 78 Cal. 389, 20 Pac. 868
    • Miller v. Kraus (1916) 155 Pac. 834.
  • 193
    Bailey v. Fox, supra, n. 192
  • 194
    Burdick, pp. 11, 320
  • 195
    Miller v. Kraus supra, n. 192
  • 196
    Burdick, p. 12
  • 197
    paragraph XIII, 9 California Law Review, 131
  • 198
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Francis v. McNeal (1913) 228 U. S. 695, 57 L. Ed. 1029, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 701,_L. R. A. 1915E 706
    • In re Bertenshaw (1907) 157 Fed. 363
    • In re Forbes (1904) 128 Fed. 137.
  • 199
    paragraph XXV, 9 California Law Review, 209
  • 200
    (1878) 99 U. S. 119.
  • 201
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • (1829) 1 P. & W. (Pa.) 198.
    • Burdick, pp. 134 ff.
  • 202
    (1873) 52 N. Y. 146.
  • 203
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • U. P. A. § 27
    • paragraph XXXV, 9 California Law Review, 222.
  • 204
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Whelan v. Shain (1896) 115 Cal. 326, 47 Pac. 57
    • Commercial Bank of Los Angeles v. Mitchell (1881) 58 Cal. 42
    • Crane v. Morrison, supra, n. 182 (approving Menagh v. Whitwell)
  • 205
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Brandt v. Salomonson (1911) 17 Cal. App. 395, 119 Pac. 946.
    • Clause II: Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt (1896) 115 Cal. 239, 46 Pac. 1056
    • Chase v. Steel (1858) 9 Cal. 65. Clause III
    • Laffan v. Naglee (1858) 9 Cal. 663, 70 Am. Dec. 678.
  • 206
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Burdick, pp. 326 ff.
    • Sears v. Starbird (1889) 78 Cal. 225, 20 Pac. 547
  • 207
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Thomas v. Atherton (1871) 10 Ch. Div. 185
    • Clayton v. Davett (1897) 38 Atl. 308 (N. J.).
  • 208
    paragraph XXV, 9 California Law Review, 209
  • 209
    Sullivan v. Sullivan (1904) 122 Wis. 326, 99 N. W. 1022
  • 210
    Burdick, p. 363.
  • 211
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Clayton v. Davett, supra, n. 207
    • Stokes v. Stevens (1870) 40 Cal. 391
    • Grossini v. Perazzo (1885) 66 Cal. 545, 6 Pac. 450
    • Flynn v. Seale (1906) 2 Cal. App. 665, 84 Pac. 263
  • 212
    This reference contains 12 citations:
    • Sears v. Starbird, supra, n. 206
    • Shuken v. Cohen (1918) 179 Cal. 279, 176 Pac. 447 (similar)
    • Clark v. Gridley (1871) 41 Cal. 119 (similar)
    • Williams v. Williams (1894) 104 Cal. 85, 37 Pac. 784 (limited to debts to firm)
    • Flynn v. Seale, supra, n. 211 (similar)
    • Stower v. Kamphefner (1907) 6 Cal. App. 80, 91 Pac. 424
    • Painter v. Painter (1887) 4 Coff. Prob. Rep. 339
    • London, Paris and American Bank Ltd. v. Smith (1894) 101 Cal. 415, 35 Pac. 1027
    • Griggs v. Clark (1863) 23 Cal. 427
    • Painter v. Painter, supra, n. 212
    • McKay v. Joy (1886) 2 Cal. Unrep. 639, 9 Pac. 940
    • Gil- lespie v. Salmon (1905) 2 Cal. App. 501, 84 Pac. 310
  • 213
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Burdick, pp. 280 ff.
    • U. P. A.: 28 Harvard Law Review, 784.
  • 214
    This reference contains 13 citations:
    • Bullock v. Hubbard (1863) 23 Cal. 496, 83 Am. Dec. 130
    • California Furniture Co. v. Halsey (1880) 54 Cal. 315
    • Ramsbottom v. Bailey (1899) 124 Cal. 259, 56 Pac. 1036
    • Marye v. Jones (1858) 9 Cal. 335
    • Whelan v. Shain, supra, n. 204
    • Burpee v. Bunn (1863) 22 Cal. 194
    • Commercial Bank of Los Angeles v. Mitchell, supra, n. 204
    • Robinson v. Tevis (1869) 38 Cal. 611
    • Crane v. Dryer (1908) 9 Cal. App. 290, 98 Pac 1072
    • Iron Works v. Davidson (1887) 73 Cal. 389, 15 Pac. 20.
    • Adams v. Words (1857) 8 Cal. 153, 68 Am. Dec. 313
    • Naglee v. Minturn (1857) 8 Cal. 541
    • Marye v. Jones, supra.
  • 215
    Burdick, pp. 284 ff.
  • 216
    London, Paris & American Bank, Ltd. v. Smith, supra, n. 212
  • 217
    28 Harvard Law Review, 786.
  • 218
    Id., n. 128.
  • 219
    Burdick, p. 314.
  • 220
    Burdick, p. 293.
  • 221
    This reference contains 10 citations:
    • Grant v. Bannister (1911) 160 Cal. 774, 118 Pac. 253 (rights of partners where one to give property and other to give labor)
    • Clark v. Jones (1875) 50 Cal. 425 (profits accruing after ter- mination)
    • Boskewitz v. Nickel (1892) 97 Cal. 19, 31 Pac. 732 (as to office expense, and interest on debts created after dissolution)
    • Forsyth v. Butler (1907) 152 Cal. 396, 93 Pac. 90 (interest due on overdrafts and withdrawals by partners creditors of firm)
    • Stretch v. Talmadge (1884) 65 Cal. 510, 4 Pac. 513 (effect of previous partial settlement)
    • Butler v. Beech (1880) 55 Cal. 28 (alteration of books after termination)
    • Behlow v. Fischer, supra, n. 189 (apparently if one partner defrauds the other partners upon a sale to him of partnership assets, the latter cannot join in a suit for dissolution in which the frauds are set up!)
    • Loftus v. Fischer, supra, n. 190 (nor can one intervene in a suit by the other!)
    • Bremner v. Leavitt (1895) 109 Cal. 130, 41 Pac. 859 (matters properly considered)
    • Fischer v. Superior Court, supra, n. 174 (appointment of receiver)
  • 222
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • First National Bank v. Simmons (1893) 98 Cal. 287, 33 Pac. 197
    • Freeman v. Badgley (1895) 105 Cal. 372, 38 Pac. 955
    • Smith v. Millard (1888) 77 Cal. 440, 19 Pac. 824
    • In re Fachelman (1918) 248 Fed. 565
    • Rapple v. Dutton (1915) 225 Fed. 430
    • Crane v. Morrison, supra, n. 182.
  • 223
    This reference contains 7 citations:
    • Smith v. Millard, supra, n. 222
    • Olmstead v. Dauphiny (1894) 104 Cal. 635, 38 Pac. 505
    • Stover v. Stevens, supra, n. 173
    • Burritz v. Dickson (1857) 8 Cal. 113
    • First National Bank v. Simmons (1893) 98 Cal. 287, 33 Pac. 197
    • Free- man v. Badgley, supra, n. 222
    • Stover v. Stevens, supra, n. 173
  • 224
    paragraph XL, 9 California Law Review, p. 312
  • 225
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Noonan v. Nunan (1888) 76 Cal. 44, 18 Pac. 98
    • Herman v. Paris (1889) 81 Cal. 625, 22 Pac. 971
    • Freeman v. Badgley, supra, n. 222.
  • 226
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Whelan v. Shain, supra, n. 204
    • Burdick (3d ed.) pp. 152 ff.
  • 227
    Mission Fixture Co. v. Potter, supra, n. 171
  • 228
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Reid v. F. W. Krelinrg's Sons Co. (1899) 125 Cal. 117, 57 Pac. 773
    • Burritt v. Dickson, supra, n. 223
    • White v. Kincaid (1919) 180 Cal. 135, 179 Pac. 685
  • 229
    Smith v. Kansas Sheet Co. (1898) 120 Cal. 517, 52 Pac. 811
  • 230
    28 Harvard Law Review, 774-778.
  • 231
    29 Harvard Law Review, 296-298.
  • 232
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Stokes v. Stevens (1870) 40 Cal. 391 (firm "solvent")
    • In re Fachel- man (1918) 248 Fed. 565 (sale during insolvency for good consideration voidable only if a preference)
    • Smith v. Kansas Sheet Co., supra, n. 229 (firm "solvent")
    • Grossini v. Perazzo, supra, n. 211
  • 233
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Green v. Thornton (1892) 96 Cal. 67, 30 Pac. 965
    • Cooley v. Miller (1914) 168 Cal. 120, 142 Pac. 83
    • Andrade v. Superior Court, supra, n. 176.
  • 234
    Hanna v. McLaughlin (1902) 158 Ind. 292, 63 N. E. 475.
  • 235
    This reference contains 12 citations:
    • Barber v. Barnes (1878) 52 Cal. 650
    • Osment v. McElrath (1886) 68 Cal. 466, 9 Pac. 731, 58 Am. Rep. 17, dictum
    • Bell v. Hudson (1887) 73 Cal. 285, 14 Pac. 791, 2 Am. St. Rep. 791, dictum
    • Robertson v. Burrell (1895) 110 Cal. 568, 42 Pac. 1086
    • West v. Russell (1888) 74 Cal. 544, 16 Pac. 392
    • Harris v. Hillegass (1880) 54 Cal. 463, dictum
    • Flynn v. Seale, supra, n. 211, semble
    • Gleason v. White (1867) 34 Cal. 258
    • McKay v. Joy (1886) 2 Cal. Unrep. 639, 9 Pac. 940
    • C. C. P. § 1493: Corson v. Berson (1890) 86 Cal. 433, 25 Pac. 7
    • White v. Conway (1885) 66 Cal. 383, 5 Pac. 672
    • Hendy v. March (1888) 75 Cal. 566, 17 Pac. 702
  • 236
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • paragraph IX, 9 California Law Review, 124
    • Wiley v. Crocker- Woolworth Nat. Bank (1904) 141 Cal. 508, 75 Pac. 106.
  • 237
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • paragraph XLIV, 9 California Law Review, 323
    • Bur- dick, pp. 268, 269
  • 238
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Rich v. Davis (1856) 6 Cal. 164
    • Soule v. Atkinson (1861) 18 Cal. 225
    • 79 Am. Dec. 1, 74
    • Gray v. Palmer (1858) 9 Cal. 616.
  • 239
    Burdick, p. 15.
  • 240
    paragraph XVI, 9 California Law Review, 137
  • 241
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Bates v. Babcock, supra, n. 182 (accounting decreed of partnership to deal in real estate)
    • Keyer v. Willmen (1907) 150 Cal. 785. 90 Pac. 135 (same)
    • Gray v. Palmer, supra, n. 238
    • Doudell v. Shoo (1912) 20 Cal. App. 424, 129 Pac. 478.
  • 242
    paragraph XLVII, 9 California Law Review, 395
  • 243
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Good will: Donleavey v. Johnston (1914) 24 Cal. App. 319, 141 Pac. 229 (partner buying out co-partner entitled to)
    • Rankin v. Newman (1896) 114 Cal. 635, 46 Pac. 742, 34 L. R. A. 265 (same, sale being according to term in articles)
    • Bell v. Ellis (1867) 33 Cal. 620 (to be valued in ascertaining solvency)
    • Little v. Caldwell (1894) 101 Cal. 553, 36 Pac. 107, 40 Am. St. Rep. 89 (no allowance for, in settling up partnership between attorneys)
    • Wulf v. Superior Court (1895) 110 Cal. 215, 42 Pac. 638, 52 Am. St. Rep. 78 (sale of business ordered including)
    • Meyers v. Merillion, supra,. n. 190.
  • 244
    paragraph XLI, 9 California Law Review, 315
  • 245
    paragraph XI, 9 California Law Review, 126
  • 246
    paragraph XXXIII, 9 California Law Review, 216
  • 247
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Skillman v. Lachman (1863) 23 Cal. 198, 83 Am. Dec. 96. Found, no mining partnership
    • Prince v. Lamb (1900) 128 Cal. 120, 60 Pac. 689
    • Colqu- houn v. Fursman (1917) 32 Cal. App. 767, 164 Pac. 10.
  • 248
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Dellapiazza v. Foley (1896) 112 Cal. 380, 44 Pac. 727 (applying C. C. § 2453, notice of termination)
    • Jones v. Clark (1871) 42 Cal. 180
    • Neville v. Moore Mining Co. (1902) 135 Cal. 561, 67 Pac. 1054
    • Stuart v. Adams (1891) 89 Cal. 367, 26 Pac. 970
    • Settembre v. Putnam (1866) 30 Cal. 490
    • Nisbet v. Nash (1878) 52 Cal. 540
  • 249
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • C. C. P. § 1585
    • Painter v. Painter (1886) 68 Cal. 395, 9 Pac. 450
  • 250
    paragraph LI. 9 California Law Review, 413
  • 251
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • 9 California Law Review, 117 to 147
    • XXV to XXXVI, 9 California Law Review, 206 to 227
    • XXXVII to XLIV, 9 California Law Review, 306 to 331
    • XLV to LII, 9 California Law Review, 391 to 415.
  • 252
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Noon v. Martin (Mar. 28, 1921) 61 Cal. Dec. 428 (provisions for filing and publi- cation of certificates of partners transacting business under a fictitious name do not apply to partnerships in other states doing an interstate mail order business in this state)
    • Welch v. Alcott (May 27, 1921) 61 Cal. Dec. 635 (agreement to divide profits is more than an agreement to divide gross earnings and establishes a partnership)
    • Rivara v. Bartolozzi (Mar. 22, 1921) 34 Cal. App. Dec. 816 (dissolution decreed on showing partnership was conducted at a loss)
    • Weavering v. Schneider (Apr. 6, 1921) 34 Cal. App. Dec. 945 (Action for dissolution and accounting; clerk could not enter judgment on referee's finding and appellant on such appeal could not raise point that no final judgment could be entered prior to the sale of the partnership property)
    • Caldwell v. Western Development Company (June 9, 1921) 35 Cal. App. Dec. 384 (action for money judgment; judgment for defendant upheld on ground that the evidence showed a partnership and that an accounting with the partner was the proper remedy)
    • Scheimer v. James (June 15, 1921) 35 Cal. App. Dec. 425 (action for dissolution and accounting, extrinsic evidence of the actual agreement admissible under the circumstances).