A. B. Rawlins Co. v. Solomon

1935 OK 340, 41 P.2d 463, 171 Okla. 317, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 192
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 2, 1935
DocketNo. 23294.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1935 OK 340 (A. B. Rawlins Co. v. Solomon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A. B. Rawlins Co. v. Solomon, 1935 OK 340, 41 P.2d 463, 171 Okla. 317, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 192 (Okla. 1935).

Opinion

OSBORN, Y. C. J.

Plaintiff in error, A. B. Rawlins Company, sued Albert Solomon, Jr., in the justice court of Ardmore township to recover on an installment contract the sum of $34.20, together with $18.-42 attorney’s fee, to which the defendant in the justice court filed an answer denying any liability, but tendered $22.75 into court, the difference between the sums being interest. Judgment resulted in the justice court in favor of plaintiff. Appeal was taken to the district court, and thereafter defendant amended his answer to allege that plaintiff was a partnership doing business under a fictitious name and had not given notice of its membership as required by law.

On trial the court found that plaintiff was a fictitious partnership and had not complied with the law, but directed that defendant pay in to the court clerk the sum of $22.75, tendered by his pleadings and that defendant recover costs.

It is contended that the court erred in finding that A. B:. Rawlins Company was a partnership doing business under a fictitious name, and that it had not complied with the statutory provisions relating to the filing of a certificate of partnership. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this question, since the trial court found that in any event plaintiff had waived the interest on said obligation, and the defendant tendered into the court the above-mentioned sum, for which the court rendered judgment. This finding of the trial court is sustained by the evidence.

We conclude that the error of the court, if any, was without substantia] injury to plaintiff.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ramsey Oil Co. v. Dunbar
1935 OK 676 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1935 OK 340, 41 P.2d 463, 171 Okla. 317, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-b-rawlins-co-v-solomon-okla-1935.