Rummelsburg

Rummelsburg v. McDonald

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 522·66 Cal. App. 380·226 P. 412
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1924Civ. No. 2712.California1,945 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Finch, J.

This action was brought to recover the amount alleged to be due on a promissory note and to foreclose a chattel mortgage given to secure the same. The demurrer to the complaint interposed by the defendants other than Painter was sustained and judgment was entered in favor of the demurring defendants. This appeal is from the judgment.

In so far as material to the questions raised by this appeal, the complaint alleges that at the times mentioned therein H. Rummelsburg and R. Rummelsburg were partners, “doing business under the firm name and style of H. Rummelsburg & Son, certificate of said partnership under said name and proof of publication thereof being on file in the manner and form required by law in the office of the county clerk of the County of Solano”; that on the day they bear date the defendant Painter executed and delivered to “H. Rummelsburg & Son” the promissory note and mortgage on which the action is based; that the defendants other than Painter “claim some right, title or interest in the personal property described in the chattel mortgage above mentioned and referred to; that the claims of the defendants and each of them are subsequent to and subject to the…

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.