Evans v. Bidleman
California Supreme Court
Evans v. Bidleman, 3 Cal. 435 (Cal. 1853)
Murray
Evans v. Bidleman
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
The court below erred in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.
There was no privity between the plaintiff and the defendants, on which to establish the relation of debtor and creditor.
The defendant M’Leman had no authority as agent- of Evans to loan the money in controversy to the defendants, and it can only be regarded as an advance by one partner to the partnership concern, for which they are liable to him, while M’Leman alone is liable to the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- IRA P. EVANS v. JOSEPH BIDLEMAN
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The plaintiff consigned goods to M’L., who sold them and received the proceeds. M’L. was the partner of a firm (and one of the defendants), which being in want of funds, proposed to another partner, B. (also a defendant), to loan the money of plaintiff, in his hands, for the purposes of the firm, to be repaid when funds of the firm could be had; which was consented to, and the money advanced under this arrangement. The firm was sued for the money so loaned. Held, that there was' no privity between the plaintiff and defendants on which to establish the relation of debtor and creditor. That M’L., as agent of plaintiff, had no authority to loan the money to the defendants, and it can only be regarded as an advance by one partner to the partnership concern, for which they are liable to him, and that M’L. alone is liable to plaintiff.