Armstrong

Armstrong v. Barceloux

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 67·34 Cal. App. 433·167 P. 895
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 1917Civ. No. 1680.California2,535 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment rendered in each of the above-entitled causes, which by stipulation were tried at the same time, the issues and testimony in each being of a similar nature.

The action by E. C. Armstrong, a corporation, consists of a single cause of action. W. A. Hosking sues as assignee for collection of the Golden Poppy Bakery & Confectionery Company, a copartnership; of the Sacramento Laundry, a corporation ; of the Meredith' Fish Company, a corporation; of the Peerless Ice Cream Company, a copartnership, and of the American Fish Company, a corporation. The claim of the American Fish Company was subsequently dropped.

Both complaints were originally against H. J. Barceloux and Amelia Pratt, also known as Aimee M. Wolf, also known as Mrs. G. M. Pratt, doing business' under the firm name and style of Hotel St. Francis, and G. M. Pratt, upon the theory that Barceloux and Amelia Pratt formed a copartnership, but at the close of the case plaintiffs filed complaints to conform to proofs against “H. J. Barceloux, doing business under the fictitious name of Hotel St. Francis” upon the theory that Amelia Pratt was but the ostensible agent of Barceloux.

It appears…

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.