Burket v. Burland
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
KERRIGAN J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff in the action succeeded to the interest of her husband, J. E. Burket, and brought this action for the purpose of settling the accounts and business of a partnership ■concern. The partnership was composed of J. E. Burket and the two defendants, and its business was the conducting of an undertaking establishment and dealing in furniture.
It is admitted by the pleadings that J. E. Burket owned a one-half interest in said partnership business, and that the two defendants owned jointly the other one-half interest therein.
The question in the case is as to the amounts contributed by J. E. Burket and the defendants to the joint venture.
Plaintiff claims that J. E. Burket had invested $5,549.48 in the partnership, and that the defendants had invested but $2,527.04, and she sued for the difference—$3,022. The defendants, on the other hand, insist that the amount contributed by them was $3,794.08, and that Burket’s contribution was a like amount.
The court found for the plaintiff. The contention of the ■defendants on this appeal is that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and we are constrained to agree with this view.
Edward G. Burland, a witness for the plaintiff (and being himself one of the defendants) testified: “On November 1, 1904, the time the partnership was formed, the undertaking
[418]
business inventoried $5,549.08; that was the value of the stock which Mr. Burket had on hand at the time; that stock went into the partnership. When the partnership was formed, Mr. Burket was owing us for twenty-one months’ labor at $50 a month, making $1,050, also $55 for a canopy and draperies which we had sold him. He also allowed us a bonus of $650' as an inducement for entering into partnership with him, which made a total of $1,755, owing to Burland Bros, from Mr. Burket. The undertaking business inventoried $5,549.08 and in this we purchased a one-half interest for $2,774.50,. and paid for that, first, by crediting Mr. Burket with the amount due us, to wit, $1,755, and by paying him the balance of $1,019.54. We had agreed to add to the undertaking business a furniture business, and we paid Mr. Burket the-$1,019.54, which was the balance due him for one-half of his undertaking business, by putting a like amount with it and investing the whole, or $2,039.08, in a stock of furniture.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)