gno.law

Hill v. Miller

California Supreme Court · 12523, 12643 · 1889-01-25 · Published · 20 P. 304 · 78 Cal. 149 · 1889 Cal. LEXIS 555

JOSEPH H. HILL, Respondent, v. S. H. MILLER, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Sacramento County
Outcome
other — Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a n
Area
civil
Panel
James D. Thornton (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Thornton

Thornton, J.

— Action to establish partnership in a hay-press, and to settle partnership accounts in which a judgment for plaintiff was entered and given. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he prosecutes these appeals, one from the judgment and the other from the order denying a new trial.

The evidence is sufficient to justify the decision of the court below.

The court below found that the defendant put in the hay-press as a part of the capital stock, for which a patent was afterward issued to him. The patent was obtained for the hay-press while the copartnership was in existence, and while the plaintiff and defendant, as copartners, were manufacturing the hay-presses. We think the court properly held that the patent so issued under an agreement that the hay-press should go into the partnership as part of its stock belonged to the partnership.

*150 It is a matter of no consequence that there was no written assignment of a half interest in the patent by defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff, as a partner, became in equity the owner of one half of the patent, though the agreement was by parol. On this point see Sumerby v. Burtin, 118 Mass. 279, which is adverse to defendant’s contention, and which sustains the conclusion here reached.

We find no error in the record.

The judgment in cause No. 12523 and the order in cause No. 12643 are affirmed.

Works, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Sharp-stein, J., concurred.

Cited by