Cook v. Fowler

35 P. 431, 101 Cal. 89, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 987
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 8, 1894
DocketNo. 19220
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 35 P. 431 (Cook v. Fowler) 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
Cook v. Fowler, 35 P. 431, 101 Cal. 89, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 987 (Cal. 1894).

Opinion

Searls, C.

Defendants appeal from a final judgment against them and in favor of plaintiffs for five hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy-five cents and costs upon a promissory note made by defendants. There is no statement or bill of exceptions.

There is but a single point made by appellant. It is that the complaint shows that plaintiffs were copartners under a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners, and that they have failed to aver or prove a compliance with the provisions of sec[90]*90tions 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code, by filing and publishing a certificate stating the names and place of residence of the copartners as therein provided.

The point is not well taken. The failure to make, file, and publish the certificate in question is matter of defense, to be set up by defendants, and, not having been so taken, is waived. (Phillips v. Goldtree, 74 Cal. 151; Garloch v. Gagnacci, 88 Cal. 600.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Vancliee, C., and Haynes, 0., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

De Haven, J., McFarland, J., Fitzgerald, J.

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

Related

Jeffery v. Volberg
324 P.2d 964 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Folden v. Lobrovich
314 P.2d 56 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Vickery v. Valdez
298 P. 151 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Messick v. Houx Bros., Inc.
288 P. 434 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Redwine v. Trowbridge
279 P. 666 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Bryant v. Wellbanks
263 P. 332 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Wilson v. Yegen Bros.
100 P. 613 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
Nicholson v. Auburn Gold Mining & Milling Co.
92 P. 651 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee
55 P. 783 (California Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 P. 431, 101 Cal. 89, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-fowler-cal-1894.