Brush v. Maydwell

Citations

• 14 Cal. 208

Syllabus

<p>M. and B., the plaintiff, were partners in a ranch and hotel. The ranch was public land, taken up under the State law, in the name of M. M. sells one-half to B. taking a mortgage back; B. agreeing to pay certain firm debts. This sale and agreement were afterward canceled, and B. sold M. one-half the ranch. Defendant, Myers, agrees to buy of B. his half of ranch ; goes into possession, but afterward refuses to buy, and buys the half from 0. who bought the whole of M. At time of,this last purchase O. and M. knew of B.’s title. Hold, that a bill in equity by B. against M.,0., and Myers, for an account of the partnership between M. & B. and for a decree establishing plaintiff’s right to the ranch, does not lie ; that his remedy at law for his half of the ranch, against M. or any one claiming nnder him, with notice of his title, is clear; and that M. would be estopped from disputing the title.</p> <p>In such ease, the claim of plaintiff to the ranch docs not depend at all on the settlement of the partnership. The sale by M. to plaintiff divested the ranch of its character as partnership property, and the reconveyance by plaintiff to M. of one-half, made them tenants in common.</p> <p>As M. makes no defense to thjpbill, it is good as against Mm for an account.</p>