Weill

Weill v. Danziger

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 88·22 Cal. App. 688·136 P. 308
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1913Civ. No. 1328.California742 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

Plaintiff herein brought this action to recover for goods, wares, and merchandise which he alleged he had furnished to defendant. Collins and Wiltsee were not served with process, and the cause proceeded to trial as against de fendants Danziger and Kent. Judgment was in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Danziger alone. Motion for a new trial was made and denied, and an appeal was then taken from that order and from the judgment.

The merchandise on account of the purchase price of which this action was brought, was all ordered by and first charged to defendant Kent. Later the charge, at Kent’s direction, was transferred to the name of “Lost Hills Syndicate.” The trial court found that Kent in making the purchase of the goods acted as the agent of his eodefendants and not as a principal. The evidence which it is claimed is insufficient to support this finding was mainly given by Kent himself, who testified that he was conducting the business for Danziger and Wiltsee in moving rig irons and operating in the Lost Hills territory. He testified as follows: “They were building rigs and holding down located ground. They were purchasing supplies. I purchased supplies for them from…

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.