Kellum v. San Mateo County Title Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
J.—This is an action to recover on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of the defendants the plaintiff has appealed.
The makers of the note claim that D. H. Ward was the agent of the plaintiff and that they paid the note, both principal and interest, to D. H. Ward. The plaintiff contends that D. H. Ward was not his agent. The trial court made findings on the subject of agency against the plaintiff. Although he divides his brief into several subheadings, the one point made on this appeal is that the findings on agency are not sustained by the evidence. Before proceeding further it will…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Catlin v. ReedSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Quinn v. DresbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Loizeaux v. FremderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Brown v. Guaranty Securities Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
- Federal Home Loan Bank v. Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1954
- Howard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
- Clover v. DGL Group LimitedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2025