Case Name: LEWIS MASON, Respondent, v. TIPTON, HATFIELD and SIMS
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1854-07
Citations: 4 Cal. 276
Docket Number: 
Parties: * LEWIS MASON, Respondent, v. TIPTON, HATFIELD and SIMS.
Judges: Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
* LEWIS MASON, Respondent, v. TIPTON, HATFIELD and SIMS.
Partnership, Right op Action by Partner. — A and B were in partnership. B took forcible possession of the partnership property, and sold it to C and D. Held, that A.cannot maintain an action for the partnership property and profits » against B, C and D.
Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District.
Mason sued Tipton, Hatfield and Sims, and alleged that he had, in May, 1852, formed a partnership with Tipton and contributed $2,683 in merchandise, being one-half of capital; that in July, 1852, Tipton ended the partnership, took forcible possession of the effects, and retained all the profits; that in August, 1852, Tipton sold out all the partnership effects to Hatfield and Sims, for $3,000, consisting of store-house, merchandise and rancho; that Hatfield and Sims appropriated the same, contrary to the wish of Mason, and refused to recognise his right, and had notice, at the time, of the sale to them, of Mason’s interest in said effects.
A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, against all the defendants, for $1,978, and judgment being entered accordingly, they appealed.
Crockett, Page & Tevis, for Appellants.
Wallace & Byland, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion of the. Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
There are no allegations in the bill of complaint which show any liability on the part of the defendants Hatfield and Sims, and the relief sought against the remaining defendant is not legitimate,
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. The bill, as against Hatfield and Sims, is ordered to be dismissed with costs, and the complainant, if he chooses, may have leave to amend his bill, so as to seek an account, and dissolution of partnership against defendant Tipton.