Rushing

Rushing v. Powell

Good Law
130 Cal. Rptr. 110·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1838·61 Cal. App. 3d 597
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 1976Civ. 2500California3,715 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

The defendants and cross-complainants, Dorothy Powell and Virginia Jehnzen doing business as El Monte Mobile Home Village, appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Eric Rushing, and cross-defendants, Eric Rushing and Keith Hutchison, after a trial by the court sitting without a jury. The first cause of action is for the sum of $5,107.40, representing the amount due for services performed and materials furnished by plaintiff to the defendants pursuant to a written contract for the construction of a swimming pool. The second and third causes of action are common counts for the sum of $198.73. The cross-complaint sought damages for alleged breach of contract and failure to construct the pool in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The defendants and cross-complainants do not challenge on this appeal the implied finding that the contract was breached by them and that they are not entitled to recover on their cross-complaint, but are urging only that the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff properly complied with the California fictitious business name statute (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17900 et seq.—particularly § 17918) and in determining that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.