Hawxhurst v. Rathgeb
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The action was brought to determine an adverse claim of the defendant as mortgagee to a note and mortgage hypothecated to plaintiff by C. E. 1L Royce, assuming to act as the attorney in fact of the defendant. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.
Appeal from judgment and order denying a new trial. The action involves the rights of the parties in two certain notes and mortgages executed by one Kunz to defendant, which plaintiff claims to own by virtue of an assignment and delivery thereof to her, made in defendant’s name by one C. E. K. Royce, claiming to act as attorney in fact for defendant under an alleged power of attorney from defendant to said Royce.
The trial court found that defendant never executed the power of attorney to Royce, and that the latter had no authority to make the assignment of the securities, and gave judgment in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Dupont v. WerthemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Golinsky v. AllisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Thompson v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Pico v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by11 opinions
- Stanton v. Superior Court of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- McKannay v. McKannayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Hole v. TakekawaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Jones v. CloverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Scott v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.