Legal Opinion
Davis v. Lezinsky
California Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1892No. 13950PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
Action on a promissory note payable to A. Davis and Son, or order, hy whom it was alleged to have been assigned to the plaintiff. The note is set out in the complaint.
The complaint not being verified, the unverified answer of the defendant denies generally each and every allegation of the complaint; and for a further answer alleges that A. Davis and Son “has never complied with the provisions of sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code of this state,” and “that Joseph Davis, the *127plaintiff above named, is the sole member of the said firm of A. Davis and Son.”
The plaintiff had…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Livesay v. DeibertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Pacific Paving Co. v. VizelichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Anderson v. FarquharCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937