Purser

Purser v. Eagle Lake Land & Irrigation Co.

Good Law
111 Cal. 139·1896 Cal. LEXIS 557·43 P. 523
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1896Sac. No. 33California1,310 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

Action to foreclose a mortgage given by defendant Eagle Lake Land and Irrigation Company to secure a promissory note of the corporation.

Judgment was- for plaintiff, and defendants appeal therefrom and from an order denying them a new trial.

*141 1. It is claimed that the finding that the corporation executed the mortgage in suit is not sustained by the evidence. This is based upon the contention that no authority was shown in the officers of the corporation to execute that instrument, and that there was no sufficient evidence of ratification of their act. The original instrument was shown to have been lost, and a certified copy of the record thereof in the county recorder’s office was introduced in evidence. From this copy it appeared that the instrument had been signed and acknowledged in due form by the president and secretary of the corporation, but it did not appear that the seal of the corporation had been affixed thereto, bio proof was offered to show that the seal was attached to the original instrument, nor was there evidence tending to show any antecedent authority by the corporation for the execution of the mortgage; but plaintiff produced and was permitted, against…

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.