Legal Opinion

Kevane v. Miller

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 17, 1906No. Civ. No. 271PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $1,400 alleged to he due from appellant to respondent by reason of the fact that the former, while acting as the special agent of the latter for the purchase of certain corporate stock, purchased the same for $1,500 and demanded and received from his principal the sum of $2,900 in payment for said stock. The appellant in his answer denied that he acted as the agent of respondent in the transaction, but the court found against him on the issue thus presented, and this appeal is from the judgment thereupon entered against him. The principal point urged by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. Woon Tuck WoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Humphrey v. PopeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  3. Patrick v. MontaderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Samonset v. MesnagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Raymond v. GloverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dinan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  2. Bowen v. GallowaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
  3. Bond v. WerleyWashington Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Patterson v. De HavenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Home Undertakers, Inc. v. Bristow Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API