General
UNION COLLECTION COMPANY v. NATIONAL FERTILIZER COMPANY
7 Cal. Unrep. 24482 Pac. 1129·Supreme Court of California·1905·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNION COLLECTION COMPANY v. NATIONAL FERTILIZER COMPANY.
Court of Appeal, First District;
October 24, 1905.
82 Pac. 1129.
Assignment—Action by Assignee.—Where a Complaint Alleged that defendant was indebted to plaintiff’s assignor for services rendered at defendant’s special instance and request between certain dates; that the services were reasonably worth $1,050, which had not been paid, except the sum of $46; that the claim was assigned to plaintiff on a certain day, two days before the services were fully performed; and that the plaintiff ever since has been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof—stated a cause of action; it being immaterial when the assignment was made.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; Thomas F. Graham, Judge.
Action by the Union Collection Company against the National Fertilizer Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Kinley & Kinley for appellant; P. A. Bergerot for respondent.
[MAJORITY — COOPER, J.]
COOPER, J.
This appeal is from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It alleges that the defendant became indebted to plaintiff’s assignor for services rendered at defendant’s special instance and request between the first day of June, 1901, and the thirty-first day of July, 1902; that such services were of the reasonable value of $1,050, and the same has not been paid, except the sum of $46. The assignment to plaintiff is alleged to have been made on the twenty-ninth day of July, 1902, two days before the services were fully performed. The complaint states that by reason of the assignment the plaintiff “ever since has been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof.” It does not concern the defendant as to when the indebtedness was assigned to plaintiff. The findings follow the complaint and are sufficient.
There is no merit in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed, with $100 damages to respondent.
We concur: Harrison, P. J.; Hall, J.