Day

Day v. Laughlin

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 232·63 Cal. App. 24·218 P. 276
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1923Civ. No. 4040.California1,457 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

The evidence showed without dispute that plaintiff gave to defendant William T. Laughlin an option to purchase certain real property for a consideration of $10,000, deed to be made to Laughlin or to such person as he might designate, and that Laughlin sold the property to defendant Filipponi for $21,612, paid to plaintiff $10,000, and kept the excess. The action was instituted to recover the amount retained by Laughlin, upon the theory that he was the confidential agent and adviser of plaintiff, and plaintiff’s special agent for the sale upon commission of the property described in the option. Deane Laughlin was made a party defendant for the reason that William T. Laughlin, his relative, had conveyed to him a part of the avails of the transaction with Filipponi. The latter was made a defendant because at the time the complaint was filed he had not paid the entire consideration for the purchase of the land. He later paid into court the amount yet due and was not an active party to the litigation. Judgment went for plaintiff and the defendants William T. and Deane Laughlin appeal. It will be understood henceforth that all references to the appellant in the singular contemplate…

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.