Casida v. Roberts
Before: Mussell
MUSSELL, J. This is an action for dissolution of a partnership, an accounting, and for damages. A jury returned a special verdict that “Hollis B. Roberts and Claude F. Casida became partners to mine, extract and sell gypsum and share the profits equaly.” It was stipulated by the parties “That the intention of the said verdict was to refer solely to the extraction, mining and selling of gypsum from deposits situated on Section 13, Township 26, Range 20 East, M.D.B. & M., Kern County, California.” Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury and counsel for the respective- parties stipulated that the accounting features of the case be heard at a later date by the court. After the trial of the accounting issues by the same judge who presided at the jury trial, judgment was rendered on May [22919], 1954, in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for $21,004.55, plus interest and costs.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict of October 19, 1953, and also from the judgment entered on May 19, 1954, on the trial of the accounting issues. Plaintiff appeals from the May 19, 1954, judgment only.
At the jury trial plaintiff Casida testified that, he had been connected with gypsum mining operations for several years; that he had known defendant Roberts for about fifteen years and that Roberts was engaged in the business of farming; that early in February, 1952, he, Casida, heard of a government lease that might be available in the Lost Hills area in respect to gypsum deposits; that on February 6, 1952, he talked to Roberts about this lease and told him that it would be necessary to put up a $2,000 deposit on the bid for a government lease on land in Section 33, Township 25 South, Range 20 East, M.D.B. & M., Kern County; that on said date he and Roberts discussed the Associated Oil property situated on Section 13 in Township 26 South, Range 20 East, M.D.B. & M., and Roberts agreed “to go in as partners with me on a fifty-fifty basis” if they could get the Associated Oil property; that he told Roberts he could get $1,000 from a Mr. Yrba and Roberts said “You know the work, and you have been in the business, and we will put up the money, and you do the work”; that he obtained $1,000 from Yrba and a like amount from Roberts and went to Sacramento with a cashier’s check for $2,000 where he put in a bid for a lease on the government property in said Section 33; that the bid was not accepted; that he and Roberts discussed the matter of obtaining a lease on Section 13 with a Mr. Sanders, manager of real estate and right of way for the Tide Water Associated Oil Company; that Sanders told them he was sure that they could get a lease; that equipment was delivered to the mine on Section 13 on February 15, 1952, and he, Casida, directed the operation of removing the “overburden” of earth over the gypsum deposit; that under his direction the mining operations on Section 13 commenced on February 15, 1952, and continued 24 hours a day until February 20, 1952, when Roberts came out to the mine and told him that “he was all finished” and to get off the property; that he then left the property and conducted no further operations thereon.
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)