Property · MBE-tested
EDWARD McGARRY, Respondent, v. G. L. PROFFITT et al., Appellants
1 Cal. Unrep. 517·Supreme Court of California·1869·CA
We concur: Crockett, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson„ J.; Sprague, J.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
EDWARD McGARRY, Respondent, v. G. L. PROFFITT et al., Appellants.
No. 1889;
August 27, 1869.
Cotenancy in Personalty — Sale hy Co-owner. — One tenant in common of personal property has no authority to sell the interest of his co-owner.
APPEAL from Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento, California.
Coffroths, Spaulding & J. H. Budd, for appellants; T. C. Edwards and W. W. Pendergast, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — SAWYER, C. J.]
SAWYER, C. J.
Upon the facts alleged in the complaint and found by the court, Proffitt and Houston were not partners, but only tenants in common of the cattle in dispute, and as cotenant, Proffitt had no authority to sell Houston’s interest in them. This is the principal question in the case. Without a particular discussion of the several minor questions raised, it is sufficient to say that we find nothing in this record to justify us in reversing the judgment.
Judgment and order affirmed.
We concur: Crockett, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson„ J.; Sprague, J.