Garfield v. Knight's Ferry & Table Mountain Water Co.
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
Whebe the point on which the case hinged was whether Kappelman & Co., who employed plaintiff to do work, acted as contractors in their individual capacity, or as agents of defendants, and the jury found a special verdict that “ The work and labor done by plaintiff in the construction of the dam was done at the instance and request of Kappelman & Co., who were the agents of the corporation defendantHeld, that this verdict does not support a judgment for plaintiff, because it does not show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability —not finding whether K. & Co. acted as agents or otherwise.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The finding in this case is in the nature of a special verdict. It is that the work was done at the instance of Kappelman & Co., who were the agents of the defendant—the defendant being a corporation. It was claimed by the defendant that though Kappelman & Co. were agents, they were also contractors, and that they employed the plaintiff in this last capacity. There is no necessary inconsistency between a man being an agent and his contracting in an individual capacity; and the very question here was, as to what capacity Kappelman & Co. acted in making this contract. The rule is that enough must be found by a special verdict or finding, when that is relied on as the basis of a judgment, to show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability. This is not done here. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment, that the issue may be directly and explicitly found.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)