McWhinney

McWhinney v. Ewers

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 448·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1139·297 P. 42
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1931Docket No. 7351.California1,541 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiffs commenced an action to recover a judgment for money. The defendants answered denying the allegations of the complaint. A trial was had before the trial court sitting without a jury. The court made findings in favor of the plaintiffs and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed.

The defendants assert that plaintiffs did business with them knowing that they were acting as agents of a disclosed principal. Continuing, they assert that any moneys they received were received for account of their principal and not for the account of the plaintiffs. On the first day of February, 1928, plaintiffs entered into a written agreement to purchase from the defendants as such agents a lot near the corner of Sixteenth Avenue and Aloha Street in San Francisco. The price was $9,250. At that time there was being constructed on the lot a dwelling. The record shows that at that time the Pacific Title and Trust Company held a trust deed dated January 13, 1928, to secure the payment of a promissory note in the sum of $4,800. That mortgage was recorded January 14, 1928. It shows also that the same company as trustee held a trust deed dated January 9, 1928, to secure…

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.