Redemeyer

Redemeyer v. Henley

Good Law
107 Cal. 175·1895 Cal. LEXIS 730·40 P. 230
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 27, 1895No. 15671California350 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

Action on a promissory note made by the defendants to plaintiff, in which judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff by default. The defendants have appealed from the judgment on the judgment-roll which contains no bill of exceptions; and the only point made by appellant is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The following is a copy of those parts of the verified complaint which it is contended are deficient.

“ 1. That the defendants, Whitcombe Henley, Barclay Henley, and Thomas B. Henley, are now, and at all the times herein named have been, partners doing business in the county of Mendocino, state of California, under the firm name and style of ‘ W. Henley & Bros.’

“ 2. That on the 15th day of April, 1893, the said defendants, Whitcombe Henley, Barclay Henley, and Thomas B. Henley, partners doing business under the firm name of ‘ W. Henley & Bros.’ as aforesaid, by the said W. Henley, made and executed their certain promissory note in writing, ef which the following is a copy, to wit:

The substance of the objection to the complaint is that it does not show that W. Henley was authorized to make the note, because such authority…

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.