¶1I dissent. The firm name of the plaintiffs was a “ designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners.” Pendleton and Williams were not their names, but only a part of their names. The intent of the statute is, that the true names of the members of a copartnership shall be given, so that parties contracting with them may know to whom they are giving credit. Such a statute should be so construed as to give it full effect. The requirement that notice shall be given showing their names when they are not shown by the firm name is reasonable and just. Beside, such a construction of the statute will or.may lead to great abuse. Why may not Jones & Jones, or anybody else, do business under the firm name of Smith & Smith, if such a construction is to prevail, and thereby conceal their true names and identity as effectually as by using the firm name of Jones & Co. if there are a number of partners? If this were done, under the foregoing opinion there would be no remedy for the unfortunate individual who might contract with irresponsible Jones & Jones, believing they were Smith & Smith, who are known to be responsible. On the other hand, if such a partnership is required to publish notice giving their true names, and in such notice give the names falsely, they may be held responsible. Again, suppose the firm name is correctly given as Smith & Smith. There may be a hundred Smiths in the same locality, some perfectly good and reliable pecuniarily, and others worthless. In such a case, their names are necessary in order to contract with them intelligently. There is nothing burdensome in this statute, and its beneficial effects should not be frittered away by a narrow construction of its provisions.
85 Cal. 142
Pendleton v. Cline
Decided July 31, 1890
California Supreme Court · decided 1890-07-31
<p>Action tor Services — Abstract of Title — Improper Counterclaim — Remote Damages — Evidence. ■— In an action to recover for services in making an abstract of title, a counterclaim for damages for failure to make the abstract in time, alleging that had the abstract been made in the time agreed the defendants would have been able to borrow money on their property, and would have been able with such money to purchase other lands for which they had been negotiating, which latter land subsequently increased in value in a specified sum over and above what they could have purchased it for, which sum was alleged as damages, is defective both in form and substance, the damages being too remote to be recovered, and the court may properly exclude all evidence relating thereto.</p> <p>Id. — Quantum Meruit — Answer Alleging Special Contract — Burden of Proof. — In an action upon a quantum meruit for services rendered, where the answer denies only the reasonable value of the services, and alleges that the work was done under a special contract as to time and price, and for a less sum than is claimed by plaintiff, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that the work was done under the express contract alleged; and if the evidence is equally balanced on that point, the plaintiff may recover what is proven to be the reasonable value of the services.</p> <p>Id. — Certificate of Partnership — Firm Name Disclosing Surnames of Partners — Construction of Code. — A firm name composed of the surnames of all the partners is a “designation showing the names of the persons interested as partners,” and not a “fictitious name,” within the meaning of section 2466 of the Civil Code; and no certificate stating the names in full of all the members of the partnership is required to be filed or published in such case, before an action can be maintained for services rendered by the partnership. (Works, J., dissenting.)</p>
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““Every partnership transacting business in the state under a fictitious name, or a designation not showing the names of the persons interested, * * * must file * • * a certificate.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Richards Bros.
Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Judgment” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Money judgment”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-07-31
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 1937
1 district · 22 state decisions
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 →