Bernard v. Heynemann
BERNARD v. HEYNEMANN
- Area
- civil
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
By the COURT.
The questions upon which this case turned were questions of fact. The testimony given by the plaintiff conflicted with that given by the defendant, and the jury saw fit to accept and base their verdict upon that of the plaintiff.
Under the act of April 12, 1852, publication of the declaration to carry on business as sole trader was not essential: Reading v. Mullen, 31 Cal. 104.
Plaintiff was not estopped by the action against Heynemann & Co. from maintaining this action; it did not constitute a bar.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Reading v. Mullen · 1866-07-01