Curry v. Roundtree

4 Citing cases

  1. Weinreich v. Johnston

    78 Cal. 254 (Cal. 1889)   Cited 12 times

    COUNSEL:          This action being brought by copartners, no evidence of an indebtedness to one of the plaintiffs only was admissible, and no judgment in favor of one of the plaintiffs could be rendered upon proof that the note was executed to him individually. (Coles v. Campbell , 3 Cal. 191; McCord v. Seale , 56 Cal. 262; People v. Haggin , 57 Cal. 579; Estabrook v. Messersmith , 18 Wis. 545; Frans v. Young, 24 Iowa 375; Benkshire v. Schulz , 25 Ind. 523; Lipperd v. Edwards , 39 Ind. 165; Butges v. O'Neil, 13 Ohio St. 72; Curry v. Roundtree , 51 Cal. 184; McGregor v. Cleveland, 5 Wend. 476; Graves v. Boston Marine Ins. Co ., 2 Cranch, 419.)          J.

  2. Cole v. Roebling Construction Co.

    156 Cal. 443 (Cal. 1909)   Cited 52 times
    In Cole v. Roebling Construction Co., 156 Cal. 443 [ 105 P. 255], a clear statement of the rule is found at p. 446: "As we have seen, an amended complaint was filed subsequent to the entry of the default which was never served upon appellant.

    The amount for which he finally obtains judgment against the other defendant would be the total amount of damage that in the opinion of the trial court or jury the plaintiff had suffered from the wrongful act of both defendants. The case of Curry v. Roundtree, 51 Cal. 184, cited by appellant, was an action against three alleged copartners jointly on a partnership demand and is not in point. (See Harrison v. McCormack, 69 Cal. 620, [11 P. 456].)

  3. Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall

    110 Cal. 490 (Cal. 1895)   Cited 11 times

    (Raun v. Reynolds , 15 Cal. 459; Gage v. Rogers , 20 Cal. 91; Lamping v. Hyatt , 27 Cal. 102; Gautier v. English , 29 Cal. 168; Parrott v. Den , 34 Cal. 79.) The three defendants being sued jointly as copartners, the clerk had no authority to enter judgment by default against two of them. (Curry v. Roundtree , 51 Cal. 184, 186; McCord v. Seale , 56 Cal. 262.)          J.

  4. Mirabile v. Smith

    119 Cal.App.2d 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming writ prohibiting trial court from entering default judgment; since any judgment against the defaulting defendant would be "predicated upon a claimed partnership or joint venture liability" with the answering co-defendants, if "the defense presented by the appearing defendants is sustained, no judgment could or should be entered against defaulting defendant"

    To the same effect is Cole v. Roebling Const. Co., 156 Cal. 443, 445 [ 105 P. 255], as applied to joint tortfeasors. [3] In Curry v. Roundtree, 51 Cal. 184, and Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616 [ 11 P. 456], it was held that a different rule seems to apply in actions against several copartners alleged to be jointly liable on a partnership contract. In the Harrison case it is said, quoting from the syllabus: