Legal Opinion

Case v. McConnell & Forrester

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 29, 1935No. Civ. 8548PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

On rehearing complaint is made that the trial court in its findings and this court in its opinion on appeal failed to give complete consideration to the provisions of Civil Code, section 2318, relating to constructive notice of the restriction upon the authority of an agent. It is urged that appellants, who were the beneficiaries of the trust, are entitled to the safeguard of the provisions in the trust agreement which limited liability to be incurred by their agents Forrester and McConnell to the trust assets.

The commissions here sued on and for which judgment was recovered…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fairbanks v. Crump Irrigation & Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Leake v. City of VeniceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Thomas v. FursmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  4. Browning v. McNearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Whitton v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. George Herz & Co. v. SoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API