gno.law

Carlock v. Cagnacci

California Supreme Court · No. 13693 · 1891-04-18 · Published · 88 Cal. 600 · 26 P. 597 · 1891 Cal. LEXIS 744

F. M. CARLOCK v. A. CAGNACCI

Area
civil
Panel
Thomas B. McFarland (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — McFarland

McFarland, J.

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.

De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by