Chow

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. The complaint contained two counts, one declaring on an open account and the other on an account stated. The allegations were in the usual form, it being alleged among other things that plaintiffs were copartners and that they had duly filed and published a certificate of copartnership to do business under the fictitious name of Quong Lee & Company. Judgment was rendered in plaintiffs’ favor and the defendant appeals.

During the trial defendant admitted the sale and delivery of the goods to him, but claimed there, as here, that plaintiffs were not the vendors, and that since they had neither alleged nor proved an assignment to them of the indebtedness sued upon they were not entitled to a judgment based thereon.

The facts are as follows: For several years preceding the commencement of the action a number of Chinese conducted a copartnership business under the fictitious name of Quong Lee & Company, the personnel of the partners having changed from time to time. Defendant purchased the goods in question from said copartnership during the years 1922 and 1923, at which time it consisted of…