Carlock v. Cagnacci

Decided April 18, 1891

California Supreme Court · decided 1891-04-18

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

Relies on Pendleton v. Cline

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Fictitious” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Fictitious name”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1976 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 295 - People v. Rossi (1976), 54 Cal. 2d 9 - People v. Harmon (1960)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 →

McFarland, J.

¶1This 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.

¶2The 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.

¶3The judgment is reversed, with direction to the court below to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.

¶4De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.