Snyder v. United Properties Co.

California Court of Appeal Jul 7, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3721.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and that the evidence, including presumptions arising from the possession of the certificates and the corporate seal, was sufficient to support the judgment for breach of contract. Furthermore, the court held that a creditor is not required to enforce an equitable lien under section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the debtor has merely agreed to execute a mortgage that was never created.

Issues

Whether the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action regarding the timing of the breach and the statute of limitations.
Whether the defendant's answer sufficiently put in issue the due execution of the written instruments.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the certificates were duly executed, delivered, and assigned.
Whether section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars an action for breach of contract where the defendant failed to execute a promised mortgage.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By failing to object to the introduction of the instruments defendant waived the point of the genuineness of the signatures thereto of the officers of the corporation and the due execution by them.”

“The presence of the corporate seal was prima facie evidence of the authority of the officers to execute the instruments on behalf of the corporation.”

“It is only a debt which is secured by a mortgage on real or personal property which must be enforced under the provisions of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for fifty-two thousand dollars and interest for breach of a written agreement on the part of the defendant to deliver a certain number of its bonds secured by a first mortgage or deed of trust upon its properties. The complaint set forth six separate causes of action, each based upon a separate written agreement designated “bond certificate” and reciting that The United Properties Company of California would, upon surrender of the certificate, deliver to the purchaser or order a certain number of its first mortgage and collateral trust bonds of the denomination of one thousand dollars each, “to be issued under and secured by the deed of trust in preparation dated January 1, 1911, made by said The United Properties Company of California, and to be delivered hereunder a's and when the said bonds may be certified, issued and ready for delivery.” It was alleged, further, that plaintiff acquired each of these bond certificates or obligations of the defendant for a valuable consideration and that they were assigned to him for a valuable consideration by the original promisee thereof. The bond certificate was then set out in the complaint

in haec wrba,

followed by allegations to the effect that the defendant “did then and there and

thereby”

promise and agree to deliver to the promisee, in said writing named, the bonds specified in the complaint. The. answer denied on information and belief that plaintiff had acquired the paper for a valuable consideration, and specifically denied those portions of the complaint which may be referred to as the allegations pleading the legal effect of the writing which is the basis of the suit. On the trial plaintiff offered evidence to prove his possession of the certificates, the assignment to him, the amount of both principal and interest unpaid, and the genuineness of the signature of the promisee subscribed to the assignment. The certificates were then offered and received in evidence without any proof of their execution but without objection by defendant, and the plaintiff rested. No evidence was offered by the defendant and the court thereupon rendered judg

[431]

ment iu favor of the plaintiff as above stated, findings of fact and conclusions of law having first been waived.

Snyder v. United Properties Co.

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief