Bustamente

The Court erred in admitting in evidence parol evidence of the 'authority of Hamilton and Clark to assign the contract of sale to plaintiff. (Richardson v. The Scott R. W. & M. Co. 22 Cal. 150 -158, and authorities there cited; Angell & Ames on Corporations.)

The Court erred in admitting in evidence the assignment (so-called) of the contract of sale, because no authority was shown in Hamilton and Clark to execute the same.

The Court erred in admitting in evidence the so-called deed of conveyance from the “ Silk Center Association ” to plaintiff, because said deed on its face appears to be the deed of one H. Hamilton and Geo. J.. Clarke, and not that of the alleged grantor. (Richardson v. The Scott R. W. & M. Co. 22 Cal. 150 -158; Angell on Corporations, ut supra.) Because there was no legal proof of any authority in Hamilton and Clarke to execute the same, the only evidence of their authority being that of Dr. Greaves, as to what occurred at a certain meeting of the stockholders.

J. W. Satterwhite, for the Respondents.

The testimony of Greaves, transcript, shows that the trustees authorized Hamilton and Clarke to execute the instruments objected to by the appellants.

Oral…