History
  • No items yet
midpage
Carlock v. Cagnacci
88 Cal. 600
Cal.
1891
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Carlock v. Cagnacci
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 18, 1891
Citation: 88 Cal. 600
Docket Number: No. 13693
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.