Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Cal. 89

Cook v. Fowler

California Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1894

California Supreme Court · decided 1894-01-08

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Relies on Carlock v. Cagnacci · Phillips v. Goldtree

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-01-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1958

9 state decisions

201894190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Searls, C.

¶1Defendants 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.

¶2There 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*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.

¶3The 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.)

¶4The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

¶5Vancliee, C., and Haynes, 0., concurred.

¶6For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

¶7De Haven, J., McFarland, J., Fitzgerald, J.

/101/cal/89 · .json · Public domain