Legal Opinion

Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Inman

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 1919No. Civ. No. 2551PublishedCited by 1 opinion

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

In this action plaintiff sued to recover upon a draft drawn by William Durflinger upon and accepted by Charles T. Inman. In his answer Inman alleged that in accepting the draft he acted for and as agent of one F. H. Richman, and asked that he be made a party defendant to the action. Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended complaint making Durflinger, Inman, and Richman parties defendant, and wherein it was alleged that Inman in making the draft acted for and as agent of Richman. Durflinger suffered default. Bichman filed an answer putting in issue the question of Inman’s alleged agency in acting…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jones v. American Potash Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  2. Anderson v. Recorder's CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Tanaka v. Highway Farming Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API