Anderson

Action against a notary and the sureties upon his official bond for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the notary in taking certain acknowledgments.

The original complaint was filed in August, 1916. The controversy has resulted in three trials. The first was without a jury and judgment went in favor of defendants, but it was reversed by the supreme court ( 181 Cal. 294 [10 A. L. R. 866, 184 Pac. 12 ]). The second was had by jury and resulted in a disagreement. Upon the third trial a jury found a verdict in favor of defendants and from the judgment entered thereon plaintiff has taken this appeal.

The facts are succinctly stated by Mr. Justice Lennon in the former appeal to be as follows:

“A few days prior to April 19, 1916, one Ambrose, a real estate agent and loan broker, through whom plaintiff had previously loaned money, called upon the plaintiff to secure a loan of nine hundred dollars upon certain real estate in the city and county of San Francisco owned by Louetta A. Pilliken, for whom Ambrose purported to act. The. plain tiff having decided to make the loan, a note and deed of trust were given to Ambrose for execution by Mrs. Pilliken and her husband.…