Marcuse

I agree with the views expressed by the Chief 'Justice relative to the claim of Pope & Talbot.

I wish to express, in addition, my dissent from the court’s decision on the claim of P. H. Murphy & Son.- In my judgment, the firm name “P. H. Murphy & Son” showed “the names of the persons interested as partners,” within the fair meaning of section 2466 of the Civil Code. I see no good reason for giving the section the strict interpretation adopted by the court. Anyone dealing with a firm called “P. H. Murphy & Son” would naturally assume (as was the fact here) that the firm was composed of two men named Murphy, P. H. Murphy being the father, and the other member his son. This assumption would be correct in all but very unusual cases. The partnership designation, therefore, disclosed the surnames of the partners, and this, we have held, is sufficient. (Pendleton v. Cline, 85 Cal. 142 , [24 Pac. 659]; McLean v. Crow, 88 Cal. 644 , 26 Pac. 596 ].)

Rehearing denied.

I concur in the opinion and judgment, in so far as the affirmance as to all the appellants except Pope & Talbot is concerned.

I dissent from that portion of our judgment which reverses the judgment of the superior court as to appellant Pope & Talbot. It seems clear to me that, upon the facts stated in the opinion as to the claim of such appellant, the superior court correctly held that the cause of action for enforcement of the lien was barred by the provision of section 1190 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lien of that claimant was fully perfected by the first filing, that of November 9, 1912, and, by express provision of the section, the property subject thereto was absolutely freed therefrom by the failure to commence enforcement proceedings in the proper court within ninety days thereafter. That our statute, as held in Hughes Mfg. etc. Co. v. Hathaway, 174 Cal. 44 , [ 161 Pac. 1159 ], authorizes a lien claimant to select any one of several events as equivalent to the completion, within a certain time from which he must perfect his lien by filing his claim, appears to me to be altogether immaterial to the question here involved. Of course, as there held, he may select, at…

The case was decided upon appeal hy the district court of the third appellate district and was transferred to this court for the purpose of a further consideration of two of the points involved.

The first of these questions was whether or not P. H. Murphy and E. W. Murphy could maintain an action under the designation of P. H. Murphy & Son without filing the eertifi cate contemplated by sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code. If this were a question unaffected by Californian precedent, we might perhaps hold that the partnership had the right and capacity to sue, but in view of the decisions of this court, and particularly the opinion in the ease of North v. Moore, 135 Cal. 621 , [ 67 Pac. 1037 ] (decided in 1902), in which it was held that “Abrams Bros.” was not a designation showing the names of persons interested as partners, we are satisfied that the opinion of the district court of appeal written by Mr. Presiding Justice Chipman correctly states the law. Supplementing his comments upon Axe v. Tolbert, 179 Mich. 556 -566, [ 146 N. W. 418 ], we may say that the statement of the court in that case is not entirely supported by the citations made. The first of these, Castle…