28_Cal._App._3d_708,_104_Cal._Rptr._903,_

28_Cal._App._3d_708,_104_Cal._Rptr._903,_ - Page 1 1 of 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 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 SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] A petition for a rehearing was denied December 14, 1972. PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 112932, Norman A. Gregg, Judge. DISPOSITION: The judgment is reversed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: 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. OVERVIEW: 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. OUTCOME: 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. CORE TERMS: 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 LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Business & Corporate Law > General Partnerships > Dissolution & Winding Up > Dissolution > Death & Incapacity
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/10/2010 for the course ACCTG 351B taught by Professor Inama during the Fall '09 term at Golden Gate.

Page1 / 4

28_Cal._App._3d_708,_104_Cal._Rptr._903,_ - Page 1 1 of 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online