Goldberg, Bowen & Co. v. Dimick (1915) · DecisionDepot

Goldberg, Bowen & Co. v. Dimick

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 8, 1915 No. S.F. No. 6381.Published

Before: Melvin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the abbreviation 'Inc.' in a promissory note is equivalent to the corporate designation of the plaintiff, and that reading a note into the record constitutes sufficient evidence of its introduction.

Issues

Whether a demurrer should be sustained when the payee's name in a note varies slightly from the plaintiff's corporate name.
Whether a promissory note must be formally tendered as an exhibit if it is read into the record during trial.
Whether the plaintiff sufficiently established its corporate status.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A note read into the record is “offered in evidence” as effectually as if the paper upon which it is written were formally tendered and taken into the custody of the court.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

MELVIN, J.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment for the aggregate sum of $3,394.08 with interest.

The action was based upon three promissory notes each pleaded in a separate count. Each note is fully set forth in the complaint. Each, as pleaded, is made payable to “Goldberg, Bowen & Co., Inc.,” and purports to be signed by J. K. Dimick as principal and H. H. Blood as surety. Each count contains the allegation that Goldberg, Bowen

& Go.

was at all times mentioned therein a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. It is also averred in the complaint that each note was made and delivered to the plaintiff.

Defendant Blood demurred to each count for alleged want of facts and that it could not be determined therefrom if demand had been made upon J. K. Dimick. The demurrers were overruled and defendant Blood answered basing his denials upon information and belief.

When the case was called for trial neither defendant Blood nor his counsel appeared. Testimony was taken in their absence by which it appeared that Goldberg, Bowen

Company was a corporation existing under the laws of the state of California, but it did not appear when the incorporation had taken place. An employee of the corporation testified that it was still the owner and holder of each note and the witness read each note into the record where each appears in the exact words by which it is set forth in the complaint. It does not appear from the record that the plaintiff formally offered the notes themselves in evidence.

Appellant insists that 1 ‘Goldberg, Bowen & Co., Inc.,” specified in the notes is not the same entity as “Goldberg, Bowen

& Co.

(a corporation), the plaintiff, and that as the complaint contains no allegation of their identity or of any assignment of the notes to the plaintiff, his demurrer for want of facts should have been sustained. There is no merit in this contention. The abbreviation “Inc.” means “incorporated,” therefore “Goldberg, Bowen

Co., Inc.,” is equivalent to

[189]

Goldberg, Bowen & Co. v. Dimick

AI Brief

Synopsis

MELVIN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief