Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.

7 P. 445, 67 Cal. 126, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 573
California Supreme Court·Decided June 23, 1885·No. No. 9752·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Ross, J.

Appellants contend that the provision of the Civil Code to the effect that persons doing business as partners, contrary to the provisions of the article requiring the filing and publishing of a certificate showing the names and residence of all of the members of the partnership, shall not maintain any action upon or on account of any contracts made or transactions had in their partnership name,” also preclude such persons from assigning a valid claim held by them as partners. There is nothing in the point.

Judgment affirmed with ten per cent damages.

McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

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

Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co., 7 P. 445, 67 Cal. 126, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 573 (Cal. 1885).

7 P. 445 (Cheney v. J. R. Newberry & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.
180 Cal. App. 2d 89 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Kaye v. Melzer
197 P.2d 50 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Smith v. Lewis
295 P. 37 (California Supreme Court, 1930)
Tripp v. Deupree
1916 OK 702 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
McFadden v. Shanley
141 P. 732 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1914)
In re Farmers' Supply Co.
170 F. 502 (S.D. Ohio, 1909)
Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee
55 P. 783 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Gray v. Wells
50 P. 23 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Kinsey & Co. v. Ohio Southern Railway Co.
2 Ohio N.P. 175 (Clark County Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Phillips v. Goldtree
15 P. 451 (California Supreme Court, 1887)