1 of 1 DOCUMENT
HARLEY KING et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. JOHN L.
STODDARD, as Administrator With the Will Annexed, etc., et al., Defendants,
Cross-complainants and Appellants
Civ. No. 30661
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three
28 Cal. App. 3d 708
; 104 Cal. Rptr. 903; 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 785
November 14, 1972
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 14, 1972.
Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 112932, Norman A. Gregg, Judge.
The judgment is reversed.
Appellants, executors of two deceased partners, sought review of a decision of the Su-
perior Court of Contra Costa County (California), which awarded a monetary judgment in favor of respondent account-
ants for services performed for a newspaper owned by the partnership.
Respondent accountants performed services for a newspaper that was operated as a general partnership.
Two of the partners died, but there was no formal winding up of the partnership. The operation of the business contin-
ued, respondents performed services, and subsequently filed an action to recover for such services rendered. The lower
court granted judgment in favor of respondents; appellants, executors of two deceased partners, challenged the decision.
The court reversed the judgment and held that the lower court erred in finding that the continuation of the business itself
was an act appropriate for winding up partnership affairs. The court held that the surviving partner was not taking action
to wind up the partnership, as was his duty under Cal. Prob. Code § 571. The court further held that the determination
that the acts of respondents were rendered during a winding up process was not based upon substantial evidence. The
court concluded that the services of respondents were rendered after the dissolution resulting from the deaths of the
partners and that respondents' claim for those services, therefore, were not chargeable to the partnership.
The court reversed the judgment of the lower court because the services of respondent accountants were
rendered after the dissolution of the partnership, which resulted from the deaths of two of the partners, and such services
were not rendered during the winding up process of the partnership; therefore the claim for the accounting services were
not chargeable to the partnership.
partnership, winding, continuation, dissolution, partner, accounting, newspaper, partnership affairs,
deceased partners, partnership business, surviving partner, liquidation, indefinite, accountant's, services rendered, ex-
ecutor, general rule, partnership property, partnership interest, authority to bind, chargeable, copartners, consented,
wind, accounting firm, accounting services, services performed, cross-complaint, individually, appointed
Business & Corporate Law > General Partnerships > Dissolution & Winding Up > Dissolution > Death & Incapacity