Newell v. Desmond
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco granting a new trial. The action was replevin to recover certain goods and chattels alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs as partners doing business under the fictitious' name of H. Keller & Co. The goods were seized by the defendant under an execution against one Cadman, through whom the plaintiffs derived their title.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco granting a new trial. The action was replevin to recover certain goods and chattels alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs as partners doing business under the fictitious' name of H. Keller & Co. The goods were seized by the defendant under an execution against one Cadman, through whom the plaintiffs derived their title. The business was established by Cadman, who subsequently sold an interest to Max H. Fay, one of the plaintiffs, and thereafter the business was carried on 'by them as partners, until…
1Per curiam
First. The assignment of errors in the statement on motion for new trial contained a specification of the particulars in which the evidence was alleged to be insufficient, full enough to enable the court to understand the question presented, and that is the substantial object of the statute. There is a sufficient compliance with section 659, Code of Civil Procedure.
Second. That the business had been conducted by Fay and Cadman under the old name of Keller & Co. is no reason why Cadman when he pretended to sell his interest to the plaintiff Hewell should not have complied with the requirements…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. O'NealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- In re YoakamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Livestock Gazette Publishing Co. v. Union Stockyard Co.California Supreme Court · 1896