Burke

Burke v. Bours

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 881·98 Cal. 171·32 P. 980
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 22, 189318087California1,931 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrisok, J.

this action was here upon the last appeal ( 92 Cal. 108 ), the facts before the court were that Bours had been employed by Faulkner, Bell & Co., who were agents of Arguello, to make a sale of the land, and had reported to them a sale thereof for the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars, sending at the same time a form of a deed to be executed by Arguello, without, however, inserting the amount of the consideration, or the name of the grantee; that Arguello filled in the amount of the consideration, and executed the deed without inserting the name of any grantee; that when Bours received the deed, lie caused his own name to be inserted therein as grantee, and sent his check for the amount of the purchase-money to Faulkner, Bell & Co., who accounted for the same to Arguello. The judgment of the court below was reversed upon the grounds that Bours was to be regarded as the agent of Arguello for making a sale of the land, and could not, as such agent, make a sale to- himself. After the cause went down another trial was had, and in addition to the facts found upon the preceding trial, the court found that when Bours sent the deed to Faulkner, Bell & Co. for execution, he had…

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.