Alpers v. SchamMel
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought against the defendants, Henry Schammel, Frank B. Reynolds, and William L. Bolte, to recover the amount due on two promissory notes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought against the defendants, Henry Schammel, Frank B. Reynolds, and William L. Bolte, to recover the amount due on two promissory notes. The complaint alleged that the defendants, at all times therein mentioned, were copartners, carrying on business as .such under the firm name of Schammel, Reynolds, & Co.; that on certain specified dates they, “ the said defendants, copartners as aforesaid,” executed the notes in question. The complaint set out the…
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
Action on two promissory notes. It is urged that the complaint does not show that the notes in suit were executed by the defendants as copartners. We cannot concur with counsel in this contention. We are of opinion that it is substantially averred that the notes were executed by defendants as copartners. This being so, there is no variance between the proof and the allegations of the complaint.
Further, there was no objection made to the notes when offered in evidence on the ground that they varied from the averments of the complaint. If such objection had been made, it might have been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hook v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dieterle v. BekinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Murdock v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Engelberg v. SebastianiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Silveira v. IversonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.