Schwarz & Gottlieb, Inc. v. Marcuse
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The case was decided upon appeal hy the district court of the third appellate district and was transferred to this court for the purpose of a further consideration of two of the points involved.
The first of these questions was whether or not P. H. Murphy and E. W. Murphy could maintain an action under the designation of P. H. Murphy & Son without filing the eertifi cate contemplated by sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code. If this were a question unaffected by Californian precedent, we might perhaps hold that the partnership had the right and capacity to sue, but in view of the decisions…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Carlock v. CagnacciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Axe v. TolbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Pendleton v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Guiterman v. WishonMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- McLean v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Andrews v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Heberling v. DayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Coast Central Credit Union v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Doherty v. CarruthersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Electric Supplies Distributing Co. v. Imperial Hot Mineral SpaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.