Johnson v. The Pacific Mail S.S Co. (1855) · DecisionDepot

Johnson v. The Pacific Mail S.S Co.

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 the evidence failed to establish that Robinson, Bissell & Co. possessed the authority to employ an agent on behalf of the defendants. Consequently, the current action cannot be sustained, though it does not preclude a future suit for work and labor performed.

Issues

Whether Robinson, Bissell & Co. had the authority to employ an agent for the defendants.
Whether the evidence presented supports the current action.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was shown no power on the part of Robinson, Bissell & Co. to employ an agent of the defendants.”

“But the present action would be no bar to a subsequent action for that purpose, and therefore the evidence does not support it.”

Synopsis

Tbe plaintiff sued to recover for services as agent of defendants, under an alleged agreement with defendants’ agent, but there was no proof that the agent had authority to make the agreement. Held, that the plaintiff should have sued for work and labor done, and not upon the agreement.

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

There was shown no power on the part of Robinson, Bissell & Co. to employ an agent of the defendants. If the plaintiff had sued for work and labor done as the employee of the Company, possibly the evidence would have entitled him to a recovery. But the present action would be no bar to a subsequent action for that purpose, and therefore the evidence does not support it.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Johnson v. The Pacific Mail S.S Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief