From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlock v. Cagnacci

Supreme Court of California
Apr 18, 1891
88 Cal. 600 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.

         COUNSEL

          Thomas Rhodes, for Appellants.

          J. W. Mahon, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: McFarland, J. De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          McFARLAND, Judge

          This action was brought to recover $ 396.35 for certain personal property alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and the court below sustained the demurrer. Plaintiffs appeal.

         The only ground of demurrer is, that the complaint does not state that plaintiffs had filed a certificate of partnership, as required by section 2466 of the Civil Code. The complaint shows that the plaintiffs, F. M. Carlock and H. D. Robb, were copartners doing business under the firm name of Carlock & Robb. The firm name was therefore not a "fictitious name," nor "a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners," within said section of the code. (Pendleton v. Cline , 85 Cal. 142.) Moreover, the proper way to raise such a point is by answer.

         The judgment is reversed, with direction to the court below to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.


Summaries of

Carlock v. Cagnacci

Supreme Court of California
Apr 18, 1891
88 Cal. 600 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Carlock v. Cagnacci

Case Details

Full title:F. M. CARLOCK et al., Appellants, v. A. CAGNACCI, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 18, 1891

Citations

88 Cal. 600 (Cal. 1891)
26 P. 597

Citing Cases

Schwarz & Gottlieb, Inc. v. Marcuse

The first of these, Castle Bros. v. Graham, 87 App. Div. 97, [84 N.Y. Supp. 120], 180 N.Y. 553, [73 N.E.…

Wetenhall v. Chas. S. Mabrey Const. Co.

An examination of the following authorities fully convinces us that the name `W.S. Wetenhall Company' is not…