Lord v. Sherman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. In March, 1851, the respondents filed their complaint against the appellant, stating that they were entitled to the possession of the undivided half of two certain lots in the city of San Francisco—describing them; and that the defendant was in possession of, and unlawfully held the same from the plaintiffs; and praying judgment against the defendant for the possession and $5000 damages.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. In March, 1851, the respondents filed their complaint against the appellant, stating that they were entitled to the possession of the undivided half of two certain lots in the city of San Francisco—describing them; and that the defendant was in possession of, and unlawfully held the same from the plaintiffs; and praying judgment against the defendant for the possession and $5000 damages. The defendant answered, admitting himself in possession; but denying that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession, &c. To prove their right…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Murbay
It is not necessary for the Court to examine all the points raised by the appellant’s counsel, ingenious though they may be; as this case turns upon the power of attorney from Stork to Sherman, and the subsequent assignment by the firm of Shermans & Stork. The power of attorney contains no authority to convey real estate, eo nomine. The power given “ to attend to all business affairs appertaining to real or personal estate,” is too indefinite to sustain a transfer of real estate, more particularly that acquired long subsequent to its execution.
The 4th section of the act concerning…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gee v. BoltonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Quay v. Presidio & Ferries RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889