Bogart v. Crosby & Van Haren
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order refusing a new triaL The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This action was brought by the respondent against the appellants, charging them with having received from the plaintiff, “as the agent of said pl-aintiff, the sum of three hundred dollars, to the use of the said plaintiff.”
The court below did not find on the question of agency, but did find that the defendants “received the money to the use of said plaintiff,” and rendered judgment for the amount and interest.
The appellants contend that the findings that the defendants received the money for plaintiff’s use, and that *196they thereby became indebted to him, are not sustained by the evidence.
This…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thomas v. MoodyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by24 opinions
- Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Doolittle v. McConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Vick v. GrasserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Wood v. BlaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Gust v. WilsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.