Carlock v. Cagnacci
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
This action was brought to recover $396.35 for certain personal property alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and the court below sustained the demurrer. Plaintiffs appeal.
The only ground of demurrer is, that the complaint does not state that plaintiffs had filed a certificate of partnership, as required by section 2466 of the Civil Code. The complaint shows that the plaintiffs, F. M. Carlock and H. D. Robb, were copartners doing business under the firm name of Carlock & Robb. The firm name was therefore not a “fictitious name,” nor “a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pendleton v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by55 opinions
- People v. RossiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. WillardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- People v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Sekt v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- People v. HarmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.