Henning v. Clark

JAMES, J.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the principal sum of $650.

[1]

It is alleged in the complaint of the plaintiff that Morganstern, McGee, Henning, Hendee, and Casebeer, prior to the first day of February, 1915, as attorneys and counselors at law, were engaged in the practice of their profession as copartners in the city of San Diego; that appellant Clark had been a client of the copartnership and that on the date mentioned a large amount of money was due the firm from appellant as fees for services rendered; that on August 6, 1915, the members of the copartnership settled and adjusted the accounts existing between the firm and appellant, and agreed that the indebtedness of Clark then was the sum of $650. It is further alleged that prior to the commencement of the action the individual members of the prior existing copartnership assigned and transferred to Henning, one of the members, all their right, title, and interest to the claim against Clark. The further essential allegation is contained in the complaint that demand had been duly made upon Clark for payment of the money and such demand had been refused. The name under which the firm of attorneys •had been practicing contained the name of each of the co-partners, except Casebeer. The complaint showed that fact, and further showed that prior to the commencement of the action a certificate, as required by section 2466 of the Civil Code, was duly executed, acknowledged, published, and filed in the office of the county clerk, showing the names of

[553]

all the partners composing the copartnership. While the truth of the latter allegation was admitted by the answer, we may call attention here to the fact that the evidence showed that such, certificate was filed on May 13, 1915, and published for the requisite number of times, the last publication being June 10, 1915'. As one of the points made by appellant is that this action could not be maintained because the certificate had not been filed and published during the time that the copartnership was engaged in business, that matter may be first disposed of. It has .been held that a copartnership, the trade designation of which does not include the names of all the copartners, may satisfy the requirements of sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code, by making, filing, and publishing the certificate showing such names, even after suit brought and before answer.