Legal Opinion

McCaskey & Ratcliff v. Pollock & Co

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1886PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This action was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 9th January, 1886, by J. Pollock & Co., merchants in Mobile, against “John W. McCaskey and Hamilton A. Rat-cliff, as merchants and partners in trade doing business under the name, firm and style of McCaskey & Ratcliff.” The attachment was levied on a stock of goods, and formal notice of the levy was given to said H. A. Ratcliff.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This action was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 9th January, 1886, by J. Pollock & Co., merchants in Mobile, against “John W. McCaskey and Hamilton A. Rat-cliff, as merchants and partners in trade doing business under the name, firm and style of McCaskey & Ratcliff.” The attachment was levied on a stock of goods, and formal notice of the levy was given to said H. A. Ratcliff. The firm of McCaskey & Ratcliff was in fact composed of said John W. McCaskey and Mrs. Sarah A. Ratcliff, the wife of said H. A.…

1Opinion of the CourtSomeryille, J.

— 1. We can see no reason why a suit by original attachment, as well as one by summons and complaint, will not lie against a partnership by their common name, where they transact business under such com*176mon name, without designating in the process the individuals who constitute the firm. A suit of this kind, by ordinary summons and complaint, is obviously authorized by section 2904 of the Code, as to which there is, and can be no controversy. This section provides, that such partnership “may be sued by the common name” — which means, may be sued in any of the modes in which other persons may…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sims, Harrison & Co. v. Jacobson & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1874
  2. Yarbrough & Co. v. Bush & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  3. Watts v. RiceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Stull v. Daniel MacH. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  2. Atlantic Glass Co. v. PaulkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
  3. Butler v. WaltonAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Simmons v. Titche Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  5. Lokey v. WardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API