McLean v. Crow
Citations
- 88 Cal. 644
- 26 P. 596
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 754
Syllabus
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the interrogating officers’ discussion with defendant about the possibility of seeking a deal with the prosecutor, in which one officer used the term “accessory,” did not amount to a promise of benefit that rendered defendant’s custodial statement involuntary
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.