Fergus v. Venice Investment Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
The respondent paid to an agent of appellant, as the purchase price of certain shares of its stock, to be taken from its treasury, the sum of $375. The agent diverted the money, applied it to his own use, and it never was paid to appellant. Respondent made demand upon appellant for the delivery to him of the stock he had bought and the demand was refused. He then demanded a return of his money and, that demand being also refused, he commenced this action for its recovery. The trial court rendered judgment in his favor. The appeal is from the judgment.
The purchase price of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Richter v. Union Land & Stock Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Vickrey v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Forestier v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Bills v. Silver King Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Rose v. FoordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lowe v. CopelandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Johnston v. KeeferIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
- Polizzi v. PorcaroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- D.A. Foley Co. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931