Pendleton

I dissent. The firm name of the plaintiffs was a “ designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners.” Pendleton and Williams were not their names, but only a part of their names. The intent of the statute is, that the true names of the members of a copartnership shall be given, so that parties contracting with them may know to whom they are giving credit. Such a statute should be so construed as to give it full effect. The requirement that notice shall be given showing their names when they are not shown by the firm name is reasonable and just. Beside, such a construction of the statute will or.may lead to great abuse. Why may not Jones & Jones, or anybody else, do business under the firm name of Smith & Smith, if such a construction is to prevail, and thereby conceal their true names and identity as effectually as by using the firm name of Jones & Co. if there are a number of partners? If this were done, under the foregoing opinion there would be no remedy for the unfortunate individual who might contract with irresponsible Jones & Jones, believing they were Smith & Smith, who are known to be responsible. On the other hand, if such a partnership is required…

This was an action to recover $302 for services in making an abstract of title. The defendants put in a counterclaim for $6,000 damages, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the fact that the abstract was not made in time. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $250, and the defendants appeal.

1. The facts stated in the counterclaim are, in substance, that if the plaintiffs had made the abstract in time, the defendants would have been able to borrow money on their property, and would have been able with such money to purchase other lands for which they had been negotiating, which latter land has subsequently increased in value in the sum of-six thousand dollars over and above what they could have purchased it for. The counterclaim is defective both in form and substance. The damages claimed are too remote, and the court properly excluded all evidence relating thereto.

2. The plaintiffs, whose names are C. W. Pendleton and W. J. Williams, were partners, doing business under the firm name of Pendleton & Williams. They have never published any certificate of copartnership; and it is contended that this prevents their recovery in this action.

Section 2466 of…