King v. Wise
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 23d of March, 1869, the defendant proposed to plaintiffs Crosett and King to unite with them in the purchase of a tract of thirty-six acres of land, in Alameda County.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 23d of March, 1869, the defendant proposed to plaintiffs Crosett and King to unite with them in the purchase of a tract of thirty-six acres of land, in Alameda County. They agreed to unite with him in the purchase, and each was to furnish one third of the purchase money, and the defendant was to conduct the negotiations, and buy the land at the least price for which it could be purchased. Defendant represented to Crosett and King that J'. Hardy owned the land, and that it could not be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Niles, J.:
By the terms of the original agreement between the defendant and the plaintiffs, Crosett and King, the defendant was to purchase the land for the least price for which it could be purchased, and for the benefit of the three parties concerned.
By this agreement the defendant assumed a position of trust, and in that relation was bound to exercise the utmost good faith towards his associates in the transaction. It is one of the plainest principles of equity that an agent cannot make a profit out of his principal in the business of his *634agency. The defendant, as associate of…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Lomita Land and Water Co. v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Rattray v. ScudderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Calmon v. SarrailleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Lind v. WebberNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.