Perkins & Street v. Patrick

California Supreme Court

Perkins & Street v. Patrick

45 Cal. 393

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1873

DocketNo. 3,567

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Cal. 393 (Perkins & Street v. Patrick) 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

Perkins & Street v. Patrick, 45 Cal. 393 (Cal. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The action is on a promissory note against the makers, and the names of the plaintiffs, as stated in the complaint, are “- Perkins & - Street,” who are described as partners, “ doing business under the firm name of Perkins & Street.”. The note was payable to one Cassidy, and came to the plaintiffs by regular indorsements from the payee. The answer denies, first, that the plaintiffs are partners under the firm name of Perkins & Street; second, that the note was indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs; third, that the plaintiffs are the owners and holders of the note. These were the only issues in the cause, and at the trial were fully proved in favor of the plaintiffs. Judgment having been rendered for the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

We discover no error in the record, and consider the appeal as frivolous.

Judgment affirmed, with twenty per cent damages. Remittitur to issue forthwith.

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

By the Court:

The action is on a promissory note against the makers, and the names of the plaintiffs, as stated in the complaint, are “- Perkins & - Street,” who are described as partners, “ doing business under the firm name of Perkins & Street.”. The note was payable to one Cassidy, and came to the plaintiffs by regular indorsements from the payee. The answer denies, first, that the plaintiffs are partners under the firm name of Perkins & Street; second, that the note was indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs; third, that the plaintiffs are the owners and holders of the note. These were the only issues in the cause, and at the trial were fully proved in favor of the plaintiffs. Judgment having been rendered for the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

We discover no error in the record, and consider the appeal as frivolous.

Judgment affirmed, with twenty per cent damages. Remittitur to issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Cal. 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-street-v-patrick-cal-1873.