Stuart v. Adams

Garoutte, J. This is an action to recover $2,795.18 upon contracts for labor, and for money advanced.

The defendants are mining copartners doing business under the firm name of the “ Alabama Bar Mining and Canal Company.”

Plaintiff performed labor for them at their mine, and a portion of the time acted in the capacity of superintendent. In this action he recovered a joint judgment for $2,311.16.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Appellants insist that, as members of a mining partnership, they are only liable pro rata for the liabilities of the partnership according to their respective interests as part owners in the mine.

Ho authority directly bearing upon this question has been presented for our consideration by counsel upon either side.

In those states where mining partnerships are common, we find many cases where judgments have been rendered against all the defendants (mining copartners) for the full amount recovered, and no question raised as to their validity upon that ground, and such has been the practice in this state. (Jones v. Clark, 42 Cal. 181; Taylor v. Castle, 42 Cal. 367; Skillman v. Lachman, 23 Cal.198; 83 [370]Am. Dec. 96; McConnell v. Denver, 35 Cal. 365; 95 Am. Dec. 107.)

In McConnell v. Denver, 35 Cal. 365, 372, 95 Am. Dec. 307, 110, where the trial court rendered a joint judgment against some of the defendants, this court said: “ Upon the findings the judgment should have been against Latham, as well as the other defendants. . „ . . If he was a member when the contract sued on was made, and the contract was executed by a party duly authorized, he must of course be bound by it as well as the other members.”

While the language may tend toward the position of respondent, yet the court’s attention does not appear to have been directed in that particular line.

It is passing strange if defendants’ position is correct that it has been allowed to quietly rest so long; yet, its novelty does not deprive it of careful consideration by the court.

“ Mining partnerships, where there are no partnership articles, are governed by the law of ordinary partnerships, except so far as the general usage of persons ex-gaged in similar pursuits or the established practice of the particular company has established a different rule. The only difference generally existing, as established by the decisions of this court, is such as legitimately flows from the fact that in such copartnerships there is no delectus personae.” (Jones v. Clark, 42 Cal. 193.)