Hudson v. Simon
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
In an action of assumpsit against a firm, where the answer of one of the defendants denies that he was a member of the firm, it is error to admit in evidence, as against that defendant, a letter admitting the indebtedness, signed in the firm name, without proof that defendant wrote the letter, or authorized it to be written.
Partnership must be proved, like any other fact, and cannot be established by mere surmise or inuendo.
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The admission, in evidence, of the letter to the plaintiff, signed “ Simon & Bro./' without any proof that it was written by U. Simon, or was in his handwriting, or that he authorized" it^to be written, was clearly erroneous.
It would be a hard case to make one liable as a partner upon the mere unauthorized statement of a third person. Partnership must be proved like any other fact, and cannot be established by mere surmise, suspicion, or inuendo. The same point was decided by this Court in Sinclair v. Wood, 3 Cal. Rep., 98.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)