Betts

Betts v. Southern California Fruit Exchange

Good Law
144 Cal. 402·77 P. 993
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 16, 1904L.A. No. 1263.California1,997 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state. Among the purposes for which it is formed, are, as stated in its articles of incorporation, to engage in the general business of buying, marketing, and selling fruit and other merchandise; to engage in a general brokerage, factor, auction, and commission business; to conduct a forwarding and shipping business; to establish and maintain agencies of said classes of business in this state and in other states of the United States, etc. A. B. Wright was its agent at Wichita, in the state of Kansas, and A. H. Cargill was its secretary at Los Angeles, in this state, during the times herein considered. In 1895 defendant entered into a contract with certain other corporations, one of which was the Orange County Fruit Exchange, by which it was appointed the agent and representative of those corporations, and given the exclusive right to market, sell, and dispose of the fruit handled by them. The Orange County Fruit Exchange consists of certain subordinate associations within the county of Orange, which are also incorporated, and with which it entered into written contracts for marketing their fruits. These associations…

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.