Clark v. Brown

Vanclief, C. — This action was commenced in the superior court of the county of Stanislaus, in which two of the defendants resided.

It is alleged in the complaint, substantially, that in 1880 the plaintiff and the defendants Brown and Flaherty entered into a mining copartnership for the purpose of working mining claims situated in Tuolumne County, called the Green claims, and extensions thereof; that they actually engaged in working said claims and extracting mineral therefrom from said date until October 25, 1887, when Flaherty sold to the defendants Clark and Crittenden “ his interest in the above mine and claim and business, since which date said defendants Clark and Crittenden have with defendant Brown and this plaintiff been actually working said mine and claim and extracting minerals therefrom; that in the working of said mine and claim, . . . . as above, plaintiff has advanced and used to and for the defendants, and each and all of them; large sums of money, amounting to many thousands of dollars; that between the first day of January, 1881, and the twenty-fifth day of October, 1887, plaintiff advanced in the working of the mine and claim aforesaid, and in extracting minerals therefrom, many thousands of dollars, and since said date has advanced for such purpose and in working said mine several thousands of dollars, all for the use of said copartnership; that there has never been any settlement of any of the partnership accounts of plaintiff and defendants, or any of them, nor of the accounts between plaintiff arid each, or all, or any, of the defendants herein; that the defendants Flaherty and Brown have refused, and still refuse, to carry on the aforesaid business, or to settle their, or either of their, accounts with the copartnership, or with this plaintiff on account thereof, or to have or make any accounting whatever, for the moneys that they, or either of them, have received on account of the said copartnership; [183]that the copartnership aforesaid can be carried on only at a pecuniary loss; that plaintiff is desirous of dissolving the same and having a liquidation of its affairs; that no term was ever prescribed or fixed between the parties hereto, or any of them, during which the said copartnership should continue; that defendants Clark and Crittenden are residents of Stanislaus County, state of California.”

The prayer is, that the partnership be dissolved, and an account taken of all the partnership dealings and transactions, from the commencement thereof, and of the moneys received and paid by the plaintiff and the defendants respectively in relation thereto; that the affairs of the firm be wound up, and the copartnership debts and liabilities be paid, and that plaintiff be paid his advances, and that the surplus, if any, be paid to the plaintiff and defendants according to their respective interests, and for such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require.