Aiken v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Aiken v. Davis

17 Cal. 119

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. 119 (Aiken v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aiken v. Davis, 17 Cal. 119 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring:

[121]*121Upon a further examination of this case, we are satisfied that our former decision was erroneous, and that the judgment should be reversed. The -principal defendant is a married woman, and as against her the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause- of action. She could only be held in the character of a sole trader under the statute; and the allegation that she was doing business as a femme sole with the consent of her husband is insufficient. Enough should have been stated to establish her liability as a sole trader.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring:

[121]*121Upon a further examination of this case, we are satisfied that our former decision was erroneous, and that the judgment should be reversed. The -principal defendant is a married woman, and as against her the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause- of action. She could only be held in the character of a sole trader under the statute; and the allegation that she was doing business as a femme sole with the consent of her husband is insufficient. Enough should have been stated to establish her liability as a sole trader.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cal. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiken-v-davis-cal-1860.