Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Glick

California Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 8291PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

This action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien terminated in the court below with the entry of a judgment of dismissal, from which the plaintiffs have appealed. Defendant Glick in her answer admits those allegations of the complaint wherein it is set forth that the plaintiffs Harry W. Andrews and Frank Cordano have been transacting business as copartners under the name of “Andrews-Cordano Plumbing Company.” However, by way of affirmative defense it is averred that said partnership had failed to file and publish the certificate required by section 2466 of the Civil Code. The interposition of this…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Carlock v. CagnacciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Pendleton v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. McLean v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Meads, Seaman & Co. v. LasarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Patterson Furniture Co. v. ByersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Berg Metals Corp. v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. National Funding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. J. C. Wattenbarger & Sons v. SandersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Fakhri v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007

12 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