Anderson

Anderson v. Aronsohn

Good Law
181 Cal. 294·1919 Cal. LEXIS 352·184 P. 12·10 A.L.R. 866
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 1919S. F. No. 8581.California2,219 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lennon, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action against a notary public and his sureties on his official bond to recover for damages alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the notary.

It appears from the findings that 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 plaintiff having decided to make the loan, a note and deed of trust were given to Ambrose for execution by Mrs. Pilliken and her husband. Ambrose returned the document signed and acknowledged in proper form befqre the defendant Aronsohn, a notary public, and, upon presentation of an order purporting to be signed by the Pillikens, Ambrose received the amount of the loan in currency. At no time during the transaction did plaintiff deal with anyone save Ambrose. In May of the same year, through a similar, transaction, plaintiff advanced to Ambrose the sum of seven hundred dollars upon property owned…

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.