Hogan

L. R. Honeycult & Co. v. Hogan

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 122
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 11, 1864No. 4100California398 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shafter, J.

The complaint in this action is founded upon a promissory note executed by John Hogan to the plaintiffs for the sum of five hundred dollars, payable three months after date. The complaint charges that Hogan and Barney, joint defendants in the action, were at the date of the note, April 22, 1862, and before and after said date, partners, in the livery-stable business, under the firm name “John Hogan,” and that on said day the defendants, under said firm name, and for ’the use and benefit of said firm, executed and delivered to the plaintiffs the note in question.

Hogan was served but did not appear. In the answer filed by Barney the partnership and partnership name are admitted as they are alleged in the complaint. The answer denies that the signature was put to the note by Barney, or by anyone acting under authority from him, and denies that the note was given on the credit of Barney or on the credit of the firm. It is further averred in the answer that it was stipulated in the partnership contract that each partner should furnish one-half of the “stock” invested in the partnership business, and that the note in suit was in fact given by Hogan on his private account, and “for an…

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.