John Bollman Co. v. S. Bachman & Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff on the fourth day of January, 1907, filed a complaint in an action for goods sold and delivered, against "S. Bachman Company." It was alleged in the complaint that "the defendant S. Bachman and Company was a copartnership," but no attempt was made in the original complaint to allege who comprised the copartnership. The prayer was for judgment against "the defendant."
In other words, the action was brought under section 388, Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that persons associated in business and transacting such business under a common name may be sued by such common name.
Subse…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Davidson v. KnoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Brumwell & Co. v. Stebbins Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Ruthven v. Beckwith & De GroatSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Good v. Red River Valley Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Jardine v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Fazzi v. PetersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. SpearsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
- Gardiner v. Eclipse Grocery Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1925
- Craig v. San Fernando Furniture Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.