Bridge

Bridge v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 365·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160·19 P.2d 80
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1933Docket No. 7456.California1,149 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

On the trial of this action in the lower court, New Amsterdam Casualty Company, a corporation, and James Cochran, Robert Seanor and Milton Shafer, each as an individual, were the defendants. From the judgment which was rendered in favor of plaintiff, two separate appeals were taken; one by all the individual defendants and the other by New Amsterdam Casualty Company. The pertinent facts as they appear from the record, together with a decision as to the law affecting the points which are applicable to all the defendants, are set forth in the opinion of this court filed in the appeal presented by the individual defendants Cochran, Seanor and Shafer. The following opinion relates to those legal questions which arise from the facts of the ease which concern New Amsterdam Casualty Company only.

It is first urged by this appellant that since it appears that its relationship with its agents Cochran, Seanor and Shafer was evidenced by a written agreement, the entire scope of the agency was necessarily governed, restricted and limited by the provisions of such agreement; and consequently, on the trial of the action, that it was prejudicial error on the part of the trial court to admit…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.