Carlock v. Cagnacci

California Supreme Court

Carlock v. Cagnacci

26 P. 597, 88 Cal. 600, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 744

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 18, 1891

DocketNo. 13693

StatusPublished

Cited by55 cases

This text of 26 P. 597 (Carlock v. Cagnacci) 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

Carlock v. Cagnacci, 26 P. 597, 88 Cal. 600, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 744 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

This action was brought to recover $396.35 for certain personal property alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and the court below sustained the demurrer. Plaintiffs appeal.

The only ground of demurrer is, that the complaint does not state that plaintiffs had filed a certificate of partnership, as required by section 2466 of the Civil Code. The complaint shows that the plaintiffs, F. M. Carlock and H. D. Robb, were copartners doing business under the firm name of Carlock & Robb. The firm name was therefore not a “fictitious name,” nor “a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners,” within said section of the code. (Pendleton v. Cline, 85 Cal. 142.) Moreover, the proper way to raise such a point is by answer.

The judgment is reversed, with direction to the court below to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.

De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

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

McFarland, J.

This action was brought to recover $396.35 for certain personal property alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and the court below sustained the demurrer. Plaintiffs appeal.

The only ground of demurrer is, that the complaint does not state that plaintiffs had filed a certificate of partnership, as required by section 2466 of the Civil Code. The complaint shows that the plaintiffs, F. M. Carlock and H. D. Robb, were copartners doing business under the firm name of Carlock & Robb. The firm name was therefore not a “fictitious name,” nor “a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners,” within said section of the code. (Pendleton v. Cline, 85 Cal. 142.) Moreover, the proper way to raise such a point is by answer.

The judgment is reversed, with direction to the court below to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.

De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 P. 597, 88 Cal. 600, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlock-v-cagnacci-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack