Felton

Upon due consideration, after argument on rehearing, we adhere to our former opinion; and for reasons therein given, the judgment and order are affirmed.

The following is the opinion above referred to, rendered in Department Two on the 22d of April, 1889: —

This is an action of unlawful detainer. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

1. Counsel for appellant argues very strenuously and *541 ingeniously that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the existence of a lease between plaintiff and defendant. But there certainly was evidence going directly to that point, and the question was fairly put to the jury. The nonsuit was properly denied.

2. Appellant objects to the validity of the notice to quit because it was not signed by respondent personally, the signature being “ 0. W. Felton, by H. G-. Platt, Att’y.” But the notice purported to come from respondent. It was proven at the trial that Platt had authority to sign it; no written authorization was necessary (Civ. Code, sec. 2309); and appellant questioned the authority (if he did question it) at his own risk.

3. The most important point…