Herrick v. Hodges
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth District. The Court gave two instructions: The first as stated in the opinion, and the second as follows : That, if Hodges bid in the property for himself, he would be liable, as just stated j but, if he bid for himself and Herrick, then he would be liable to ITerrick to account to him for Herrick’s proportion of any amount realized, after deducting Herrick’s proportion of necessary expenses; and that Hodges, as Herrick’s agent, had no right to dispose…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth District. The Court gave two instructions: The first as stated in the opinion, and the second as follows : That, if Hodges bid in the property for himself, he would be liable, as just stated j but, if he bid for himself and Herrick, then he would be liable to ITerrick to account to him for Herrick’s proportion of any amount realized, after deducting Herrick’s proportion of necessary expenses; and that Hodges, as Herrick’s agent, had no right to dispose of the property so bid in without first having authority from Herrick. Defendant excepted. The jury found for…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Terry, C. J. concurring.
Suit brought to recover a sum of money alleged to have been collected by defendant of a firm of Towers & Pierce, in Humboldt County, the defendant acting as agent for the plaintiff, and which money the defendant refused to pay.
It seems defendant had a large claim on this firm, and was about going to Humboldt, from San Francisco, to collect it. • Plaintiff had a smaller claim, and the plaintiff and defendant agreed together that defendant should take plaintiff’s claim and treat it as his own in any suit to be brought for the collection of the debt, the plaintiff and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Banning v. MarleauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Quinlan v. JonesWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Lavelle v. LowryMontana Supreme Court · 1885