Peardon v. White

PLUMMER, J.

Action for an accounting. Plaintiffs had judgment. Defendant appeals. It appears from the pleadings -and transcript in this action that in 1920 and up to the date of the entry of judgment herein the plaintiffs were the owners of a certain ranch situated in the county of Sutter upon which they were raising Thompson seedless grapes, the plaintiff Peardon owning a half interest in the ranch and. the other plaintiffs a one-fourth interest each. This ranch was operated by the plaintiffs as partners.

During the same period of time the -defendant has been the owner of a ranch located in close proximity to the ranch belonging to- the plaintiffs. The defendant was likewise engaged in the raising of Thompson seedless grapes. Prior to the transaction hereinafter referred to- neither plaintiffs nor the defendant had a fruit-drying plant -of their own. Early in 1920 the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed that they would 'construct a raisin and fruit-drying plant for the use of the plaintiffs and defendant respectively. The plaintiffs were to pay one-half of the cost thereof and the defendant to pay -one-half of the cost of such plant, and that the plaintiffs and defendant should he equal owners in said plant and when grapes were -dried the expense of operating the plant should be prorated between the plaintiffs and defendant,—that is, the total expense of operating the plant should be divided between them in proportion as the tons of grapes dried by each here to- the total number of tons dried. The drying plant itself was erected upon the property belonging to the plaintiffs and was- operated during the years 1920 and 1921. The cost of the plant was several thousand dollars. A few bills were paid by the defendant, hut the greater portion thereof was paid by the plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs and the defendant were copartners in this enterprise. The trial court found that there was no- copartnership but that the plain

[465]

tiffs and the defendant were engaged in a joint adventure and directed that an accounting be bad. The first point made for reversal is that the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions of sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code in that no certificate of partnership was ever filed or published.