Hall

Plaintiffs recovered judgment upon two counts: First, $300 balance due upon a promissory note, together with attorney fees and costs, and, second, $500 for real estate broker’s commission. Defendant appeals.

The plaintiffs sued in the style as above set forth in the title of this canse. The promissory note sued upon was made payable to the order of “Hall Baker Co.” No assignment of the note from Hall Baker Co. to Hall & Baker was alleged or proven, but judgment was nevertheless given plaintiffs, apparently upon the theory that the payee of the note was in fact the plaintiffs above named. Defend ant’s objection to the introduction of the note in evidence upon the ground of variance in this respect was overruled by the court.

Defendant pleaded as a special defense in his answer that plaintiffs had not filed a copartnership certificate as required by law. The court found this allegation to be untrue. Since the trial of the case the Supreme Court, in Andrews v. Glick, 205 Cal. 699 [ 272 Pac. 587 ], has held that the name Andrews-Cordano Plumbing Company was a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners in such business and, therefore, its sole members,…