Coward v. Clanton
Citations
- 79 Cal. 23
- 21 P. 359
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 662
Syllabus
<p>Appeal prom Judgment—Time por Taking—Dismissal.—An appeal from a judgment taken more than one year after its rendition cannot be considered, and will be dismissed.</p> <p>Partnership—Agreement to Deal in Real Estate—Statute op Frauds. — A partnership agreement, the object of which is to deal in real estate and share the profits, is not within the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Id. — Executed Parol Agreement—Partner Estopped to Dent Validity. —In an action by one of the partners for an accounting of the profits realized under such an agreement, after the same has been executed, a partner who has received the entire profits is estopped from claiming that the agreement was void under the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Id.—Construction op Agreement — Profits prom Sales.—Where a partnership agreement to deal in land provides that one of the partners shall furnish the money to buy the land, and the other shall contribute his skill in selling it, the profits to he equally divided, and in pursuance thereof a tract of land is purchased and a part of it is sold at a profit, hut for less than the purchase price paid for the entire tract, no profits are earned, within the meaning of the agreement, in which the partner contributing his skill is entitled to share.</p> <p>Evidence—Pleading Admissible as an Admission.—A pleading in a prior action between the same parties, although superseded by an amendment, is admissible in evidence in a subsequent action against the party filing it as an admission made by him.</p> <p>Id.—Attorney’s Authority to Sign Pleading is Presumed.—Where such pleading is signed by an attorney, and not by the party against whom it is offered, but no objection to its admission is made on that ground, it will not be presumed on appeal that the attorney in signing acted without authority.</p>
Judges: Beatty, Works
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Meyer v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court· 1954-03-01· cited 117×
- Lasry v. LedermanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1957-01-10· cited 54×
- James v. HerbertCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1957-04-03· cited 45×
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. PorterNinth Circuit· 1951-02-01· cited 35×
- Nungaray v. Pleasant Valley Lima Bean Growers & Warehouse Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-06-28· cited 34×
- Tobola v. WholetCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1946-07-15· cited 30×
- Dolinar v. PedoneCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-03-02· cited 28×
- Green v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-29· cited 21×
- Epstein v. StahlCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1959-12-08· cited 20×
- Thompson v. Municipal Bond CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1937-11-08· cited 12×
- Maclaskey v. MecartneyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1944-12-19· cited 11×
- Brown v. FairbanksCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-11-23· cited 9×
- Gross v. RaeburnCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-09-06· cited 7×
- Jones v. PatrickU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada· 1905-09-05· cited 4×
- Smith v. Fidelity Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1935-09-16· cited 1×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gray v. Palmer & EatonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 39×
- Duff v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-12-31· cited 37×
- Holmes v. McCrayIndiana Supreme Court· 1875-11-15· cited 26×
- Sherwood v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1875-01-04· cited 15×
- Kamm v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-11-30· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.