Legal Opinion
Heinfelt v. Arth
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 24, 1933No. Docket No. 1430PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
The plaintiffs brought this action to collect a real estate commission alleged to have been earned by them. The court denied recovery on the sole ground that the copartnership, as distinguished from the individuals constituting the same, was not separately licensed under the California Real Estate Act (Deering’s General Laws, 1931, vol. 1, p. 25). The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs P. A. Heinfelt and M. G. Hoffman were copartners doing business under the fictitious firm name and style of National Realty Company, and that they had duly recorded and pub lished the required certificate of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Wise v. RadisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Moore v. BorgfeldtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Ginsberg Tile Co. v. FaraoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Vickery v. ValdezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
3Cited by8 opinions
- Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v. 40th & 3rd Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1967
- Kopf v. MilamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Rudnick v. DelfinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Heinfelt v. ArthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Leh v. General Petroleum CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.