Earle v. Debesa

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 1930 No. Docket No. 5991.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was liable for the acts of his ostensible agent and that the trial court's jurisdiction over the defendant was not divested by his subsequent appointment as a vice-consul.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the salesman was the defendant's ostensible agent.
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the defendant upon his appointment as a vice-consul of the Republic of Peru.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding an offer of compromise.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence is sufficient to prove that the man Sloane was the ostensible agent of the defendant, and for the acts of such ostensible agent the defendant is responsible.”

“the court having acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, such jurisdiction was not divested by the fact that, perhaps on the very day of trial of the action, the defendant was appointed to a vice-consular office.”

CONREY, P. J.

During the months of May and June, 1925, the defendants were licensed brokers and as such

[620]

brokers were fiscal agents for sale of stock of the Pasadena Mercantile Finance Corporation, a California corporation. •On or about June 2, 1925, one Edward Sloane, claiming to be a salesman of the defendants, solicited the plaintiff to purchase units of the capital stock of said Pasadena corporation. In the complaint it is alleged that said Sloane as agent of the defendants represented to plaintiff that he was a duly licensed and bonded salesman employed by the defendants ; that relying upon the fact of such employment, which had been acknowledged and ratified by defendants in a previous transaction involving the purchase of a unit of capital stock of said corporation, plaintiff delivered to said defendants, through said salesman as such agent of defendants, two corporate gold bonds having a market value of $1985; that, in consideration thereof, defendants by their said agent agreed to obtain for plaintiff' five units of said stock, having a par value of $5,100; that plaintiff was not familiar with the law and did not know, as defendants did well know at said time, that any issuance of said stock not in accordance with the terms of the permit issued therefor by the commissioner of corporations would be void; that said purported subscription was in violation of said permit in that no cash payment was made and the value of said bonds was not sufficient to conform with the terms of said permit, and no notes or bonds were given to cover the balance of the price of said stock. Other allegations follow in the complaint, showing false and fraudulent representations by said agent that said stock could be duly and regularly issued in consideration of delivery of said bonds, and that in reliance upon said representations the plaintiff delivered said bonds by delivering the same to said agent. Upon discovery of the falsity of said representations, plaintiff demanded rescission of said purported subscription and a return to plaintiff of said bonds or the value thereof, but defendants refused to consent thereto or to return said bonds or their value.

Judgment having been entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant DeBesa, said defendant appeals therefrom. The grounds of appeal are as hereinafter stated. Appellant contends that “the court erred for the following reasons”. Here follow eight points, numbered one to

Earle v. Debesa

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief