Case Name: WILSON v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY, AND GRIFFITH v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1858
Citations: 10 Cal. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILSON v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY, AND GRIFFITH v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
WILSON v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY, AND GRIFFITH v. SPRING HILL QUARTZ-MINING COMPANY.
The return of a sheriff on a summons, that he had served it on one Pendleton, one of the partners and associates of the company, is prima facie evidence that Pendleton was such partner and associate.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Amador.
Heydenfeldt for Appellants.
Bobinson and Beatty for Respondents.
For the other points decided in these cases; see Rowe v. Table Mountain Water Company, ante, 441.

Opinion:
Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court
Terry, C. J., concurring.
These cases only differ from the case of Rowe v. The Table Mountain Water Company in this, that here the complaint is against a trading company, and the service of the summons is returned executed upon the company, by service upon one Pendleton, one of the partners and associates. The principle applicable to the two classes of cases is not materially different.
Judgment affirmed.