Bernard v. Heynemann

California Supreme Court

Bernard v. Heynemann

2 Cal. Unrep. 166

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1883

DocketNo. 7925

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Cal. Unrep. 166 (Bernard v. Heynemann) 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

Bernard v. Heynemann, 2 Cal. Unrep. 166 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

The questions upon which this case turned were questions of fact. The testimony given by the plaintiff conflicted with that given by the defendant, and the jury saw fit to accept and base their verdict upon that of the plaintiff.

Under the act of April 12, 1852, publication of the declaration to carry on business as sole trader was not essential: Reading v. Mullen, 31 Cal. 104.

Plaintiff was not estopped by the action against Heynemann & Co. from maintaining this action; it did not constitute a bar.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

By the COURT.

The questions upon which this case turned were questions of fact. The testimony given by the plaintiff conflicted with that given by the defendant, and the jury saw fit to accept and base their verdict upon that of the plaintiff.

Under the act of April 12, 1852, publication of the declaration to carry on business as sole trader was not essential: Reading v. Mullen, 31 Cal. 104.

Plaintiff was not estopped by the action against Heynemann & Co. from maintaining this action; it did not constitute a bar.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Cal. Unrep. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-v-heynemann-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack