Case Name: ADAM SCHUEPLER, Appellant, v. O M. EVANS et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1854-07
Citations: 4 Cal. 213
Docket Number: 
Parties: ADAM SCHUEPLER, Appellant, v. O M. EVANS et al., Respondents.
Judges: ‘Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
ADAM SCHUEPLER, Appellant, v. O M. EVANS et al., Respondents.
Jotisdictiob ob Distbiot Coubt. — In a suit brought by one of the partners in a mining company against the company, to recover his share, which had been sold for an alleged nonpayment of an assessment, and also to recover the sum of $2027,’ his proportionate share of the gold taken out by the said company, the District Court has jurisdiction.
Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, joint owners and partners with him in a mining claim, on Middle Feather River, for a share in the claim, which had been sold by the company, for his default in paying an assessment. He also claimed $2027, his share of the gold taken from the claim.
Evans answered for himself and the company, denying generally the allegations of the complaint, and averred that •the“ Court had not power or jurisdiction to grant the relief in the prayer of the plaintiff,” and asked for judgment in favor of defendants.
The Court sustained the plea to its jurisdiction, and dismissed the cause.
Stephen J. Field, for Appellant.

Opinion:
Mr. Ch. J. Murray
delivered the opinion of the Court.
'Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.
We are unable to discover by what particular rule of law or mode of reasoning the Court below arrived at the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction in this case. The subject matter in * dispute, as well as the parties, seem to have been properly before it, and it was perfectly competent for the Court to have granted the- relief sought.
Judgment reversed with costs.