Argenti v. Brannan (1855) · DecisionDepot

Argenti v. Brannan

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a third party's notice of ownership is insufficient to interrupt a contract between a buyer and an undisclosed agent, as the buyer is entitled to fulfill their liability to the party with whom they contracted.

Issues

Whether a notice of ownership from a third party can interrupt the performance of a contract between a buyer and an undisclosed agent.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The mere notice of Argénti to the defendant was insufficient to interrupt the completion of the performance of the contract.”

“The defendant had the right to disbelieve it and disregard it. He had assumed a liability to 'another. His ditty was to fulfil it, unless legal steps had been taken to prevent him.”

Synopsis

C. sold a lot of lumber to B., and A. who claimed it, notified B. that the lumber belonged to'him, and brought an action to recover the price. Held, that the notice and the form of action recognized the right of 0. to sell the lumber.

There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. C. was pro tanto the agent of A., and was entitled to collect the price, and the mere notice of A. to B. was insufficient to interrupt the completion of the performance of the contract between 0. and B.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The latter purchased from Strong and knew him alone, and this cannot be relieved by a mere notice from the plaintiff that the lumber belonged to him. The notice at least recognized the right of Strong to sell the lumber, and so does the form of the action. Pro tanto, Strong was the agent pf the plaintiff without having disclosed his agency, and was entitled to collect the purchase price. The mere notice of Argénti to the defendant was insufficient to interrupt the completion of the performance of the contract. The defendant had the right to disbelieve it and disregard it. He had assumed a liability to 'another. His ditty was to fulfil it, unless legal steps had been taken to prevent him.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Argenti v. Brannan

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief