Bahen v. Furley (1919) · DecisionDepot

Bahen v. Furley

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 1919 No. Civ. No. 3034.Published

Before: Thomas

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against defendants Furley, Plumer, and Koontz for fraud, but reversed the judgment against defendant Brown, finding no evidence that he possessed knowledge of the fraudulent scheme or participated in the deceit.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the finding that Furley and Plumer acted as plaintiff's agents.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that Koontz had knowledge of and participated in the fraudulent representations.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that Brown acted with knowledge of the fraud practiced against the plaintiff.

Disposition. reversed in part and affirmed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think, beyond doubt, that defendants Furley and Plumer were the agents of plaintiff, and that he relied upon them as such”

“The record does not show that Koontz made any such inquiry, while it does show some participation in, and the proceeds resulting from, this very unfair treatment of plaintiff.”

“The burden of proof to show Brown’s knowledge of the fraud was on plaintiff, and has not been met.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Paul J. McCormick, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

THOMAS, J.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants to recover judgment for the total sum of $5,950, because of deceit practiced against him. The material allegations of the complaint, with the exception of certain formal points, were denied.

Without a word of explanation the record before us might be confusing. The explanation is that much of the testimony in the record refers to another case, tried in the superior court, but which cause is not the subject of this appeal—a suit brought by this same plaintiff against certain of the defendants here, and others who are not joined as defendants in this action. The trial of the present action followed immediately after the trial of that case. It was therefore stipulated that the evidence given in the first action, so far as applicable, should be considered as having been given in this matter. Both cases, it is stated, were fraud cases. The testimony introduced in the first case, to a great extent, it is urged, bears directly on this dispute. Judgment went for plaintiff in both cases, but appeal is taken in this action alone.

In support of the appeal appellants contend: (1) That the complaint is insufficient; (2) that there is no evidence in the record to support the finding against defendants Brown and Koontz; and (3) that there is no evidence to support the finding that the defendants Furley and Plumer were plaintiff’s agents.

We have read the entire record, and are satisfied with the conclusion of the learned trial court on the point last urged. We think, beyond doubt, that defendants Furley and Plumer were the agents of plaintiff, and that he relied upon them as such; hence, there need be no discussion of their obligation to act in good faith with plaintiff. That they did not do so is amply shown by the evidence.

(Calmon

Sarraille,

142 Cal. 638, [76 Pac. 486].)

It is urged by appellants that their motion for nonsuit should have been granted as to both Brown and Koontz, for the reason that “there had not been any evidence introduced showing that Brown or Koontz had any guilty

[136]

Bahen v. Furley

AI Brief

Synopsis

THOMAS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief