Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Wilson v. Spring Hill Quartz-Mining Co. 10 Cal. 445

← Cases

Wilson v. Spring Hill Quartz-Mining Co.

10 Cal. 445 Court Cal. English

Delivered by Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Contents

Majority

p. 445
WILSON v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY, AND GRIFFITH v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY.

Headnote

The return of a sheriff on a summons, that he had served it on one Pendleton, one of the partners and associates of the company, is prima facie evidence that Pendleton was such partner and associate.[1]
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Amador.
Heydenfeldt for Appellants.
Bobinson and Beatty for Respondents.

Terry, C. J., concurring.

These cases only differ from the case of Rowe v. The Table Mountain Water Company in this, that here the complaint is against a trading company, and the service of the summons is returned executed upon the company, by service upon one Pendleton, one of the partners and associates. The principle applicable to the two classes of cases is not materially different.

Judgment affirmed.