McLean v. Crow

Partnership—Action by Partner—Filing of Certificate—Surnames of Partners — Fictitious Name. — A firm name composed of the surnames of all the partners is not a fictitious name within the meaning of section 2466 of the Civil Code, requiring the filing of a certificate of partnership as a condition precedent to action upon a claim due to the partners.

Estates of Decedents — Claim for Medical Services — Action against Administrator — Preferred Claim — Immaterial Issue. — In an action brought by physicians, as partners, against the administrators of an estate, for medical services rendered to the intestate, the question as to whether or not the services were rendered during the last illness of the deceased, and were therefore a preferred claim under section 1646 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is an immaterial issue.

Id,—Effect of Judgment against Estate — Priority of Claims — Marshaling of Assets. — A judgment against an administrator, in an action upon a claim against the estate, merely has the effect of a claim duly allowed, to be paid in due course of administration, and does not give the creditor any further rights or determine the right of priority over other claims, which must be determined by the probate court when the assets are finally marshaled and the order of payment determined by that court.

Trial—Documentary Evidence—Claim against Estate — Submission to Jury—Discretion. — It is within the discretion of the court to allow the jury to take with them documentary evidence when they retire to consider their verdict, and it is not error for the court to allow the jury to take with them the claim upon which the suit is based, which constitutes part of the complaint, and which has been received in evidence.

Expert Evidence — Instruction. — Where the court has instructed the jury to the effect that the opinion of experts as to the value of the medical services rendered is not conclusive, but that the purpose of their introduction is to supplement the general knowledge and experience of the jury in relation to the matters before them, and thereby aid them in the exercise of their own judgment upon the facts, which must be exercised independently of the opinion evidence, it is not error to refuse to add an express admonition that such evidence should be received With scrutiny and caution.

Action for Services—Pleading—Quantum Meruit—Issue as to Value — Admission of Less Amount — Province of Jury — Instruction. — In an action for the reasonable value of services rendered, which are alleged to be worth a specified amount, where the answer takes issue upon their value, but admits them to be worth a less amount, it is for the jury to determine whether the services were worth more than the amount admitted in the answer, and it is not error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover unless they should find that the services were reasonably worth more than the amount so admitted.