Potts v. Whitson
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, P. J.
Counsel for plaintiff procured the default of appealing defendants R. D. Whitson and Herman Lewis to be entered by the clerk in the trial court on the theory that an answer filed by them was not their answer, but was the answer of an independent entity—the WhitsonLewis Theaters, an association or partnership of which the defendants were members. The fact that the partnership existed was alleged in the body of the complaint but it was not made a party as an entity or sued by its common name as might have been done under section 388 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After so causing the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Waybright v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Gray v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Jardine v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Brill v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Reher v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Burtnett v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Schnabel v. LuiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Epstein v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Heidary v. YadollahiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Manos v. FickenscherDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.