Morrow

Morrow v. Norton

Good Law
1894 Cal. LEXIS 1283·4 Cal. Unrep. 934·38 P. 953
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1894No. 15,530California810 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

We deem this appeal frivolous. Judgment was for the plaintiffs in the court below, and the defendant Norton appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. The only point made against the judgment is that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained for want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. There is nothing in the point. The complaint counts on two several promissory notes made by the firm of McPride & Pease to plaintiffs, and an account for merchandise sold and delivered by a third party to defendants and assigned to *935 plaintiffs. These several obligations are set np in separate counts, each complete in itself, setting forth that at the time of incurring them defendants were carrying on and conducting a livery-stable business as partners under the name of McBride & Pease, and that the notes were made and the account incurred by defendants as such partners, and that they have not been paid. It is then further alleged that since the making of the notes and the account defendant Norton has promised to pay them. It is urged that the original obligations of McBride & Pease and the separate promise of Norton cannot…

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.