James D. Thornton

This case involves an appeal by the defendant from an order denying a motion for a new trial in a dispute over the validity of a marriage contract between a man and a woman, which included a clause keeping the agreement secret for two years. The court examined the record from the prior appeal in Sharon v. Sharon (75 Cal. 1), which had established that a present-consent marriage agreement is valid even if secret, that public assumption of marital duties is not required under Civil Code section 55, and that secret cohabitation following consent can constitute marriage. On this appeal, the court found that the engrossed statement on appeal was properly used below, that no material exhibits were omitted from the record, and that the prior rulings on the marriage's validity remained binding. It reversed the order denying a new trial due to the erroneous exclusion of relevant testimony from witness Hornblower regarding the genuineness of the marriage contract, while affirming other evidentiary rulings and the overall legal framework from the first appeal.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over partnership interests in a hay-press and related patent rights, where the plaintiff sought to establish the partnership and settle accounts. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant had contributed the hay-press to the partnership capital and that the patent, obtained during the partnership while the parties were manufacturing the presses, belonged to the partnership. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff became the equitable owner of a half-interest in the patent under the parties' agreement, even without a written assignment, as supported by precedent on partnership property rights. The evidence justified the lower court's decision, and no errors were found in the record.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a dispute over title to an undivided half-interest in a San Francisco lot, where the plaintiff sued to recover possession after being ousted in 1881 and the defendants raised the statute of limitations based on their possession since 1867-1868. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, finding the statute did not bar the claim. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the findings on adverse possession were insufficient. The core reasoning was that possession by one tenant in common is not hostile or adverse to a co-tenant absent an open, notorious ouster or claim of exclusive title that puts the other on notice, and the evidence did not establish such an earlier adverse ouster here.

property