Mercer

Mercer v. Dunscomb

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 28·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 117·293 P. 836
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1930Docket No. 6999.California3,582 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Plaintiffs sued the defendants above named for $13,000' and obtained a judgment against two of them, Munro and Huey, for the sum of $12,680.26. The third defendant, Cornwall, was not served with summons, and consequently as to him no relief was granted; and the remaining two, Dunscomb and Marston, were absolved by the trial court from all liability on the indebtedness sued upon. From the latter part of the judgment plaintiffs have appealed.

As will hereinafter more particularly appear, the amount plaintiffs sued for had been deposited by them with the Security Bond and Finance Company, a corporation, of which the defendant Dunscomb and the deceased Wm. H. Marston were two of the five directors, for the purpose of. purchasing for plaintiffs certain bonds, and substantially all of it was misappropriated to the use and benefit of the corporation by the defendants Cornwall and Huey, with the consent of Munro, the three being at the time the remain-' ing members of the board of directors, and also, respectively, the vice-president and manager, the secretary, and the president of the corporation.

The amended complaint contained two causes of action, separately stated. The first was…

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.