Bushnell v. McCauley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The complaint in this ease sets out that in the year 1855, the plaintiff delivered to defendant the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars, to be used by him in the purchase of gold-dust for plaintiff, for a certain commission of five dollars on each one thousand dollars’ worth of gold-dust bought.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The complaint in this ease sets out that in the year 1855, the plaintiff delivered to defendant the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars, to be used by him in the purchase of gold-dust for plaintiff, for a certain commission of five dollars on each one thousand dollars’ worth of gold-dust bought. “ That the said defendant, although often requested, has hitherto failed and neglected to account for and pay over the aforesaid sum of nine hundred and forty dollars, either in money or its equivalent in gold-dust, or any part thereof,…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
The plaintiff employed the defendant, as an agent, to buy gold-dust, allowing him a certain per cent, on each one thousand dollars purchased.
The declaration alleges a deposit • of nine hundred and forty dollars for this purpose, and a refusal by the defendant, on demand, to account for, or pay over said money, or its equivalent in gold-dust.
The answer specifically denies a demand.
The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no demand had been proved. The Court below overruled the motion-, at the same time instructing the jury that a demand need not be shown. This was error. “ In an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Keller Research Corp. v. RoquerreDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1951
- Edgerton v. Armour & Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1950
- Burke v. MaguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908