Bliss v. Kaweah Canal & Irrigation Co.
Synopsis
Corporation—Conveyance—Seal—Evidence.—Where the corporate seal of a corporation, accompanied by the signatures of the proper officers, is affixed to an instrument, the seal is itself prima, facie evidence that it was affixed by proper authority.
Id.—Authority of President—The president of a corporation has no authority, by virtue of his office, to purchase or sell real property for the corporation at his discretion. The power can be conferred only by the board of trustees.
Id.—Estoppel. A corporation is not estopped to deny the validity of an unauthorized act of an agent when it has not availed itself of any benefit from his act.
The Court. Appellant avers there was no evidence to sustain the findings of the court below as to the existence of a natural water-course, known as Outside Creek, and that defendant constructed a dam across the channel of that creek, and diverted its waters. t
There was evidence tending to prove that Outside Creek was a natural water-course, and that defendant’s dam was erected across the stream and operated a diversion. As to the point most insisted upon by appellant, the witness Hyde testified: “ I have seen defendant’s dam. It is a very well constructed dam. It is across the channel of Outside Creek, where the bulk of the waters formerly ran down, and always has since I knew the stream. Its effect is to obstruct the flow of water, and entirely prevent it from flowing down at that point.” So the witness Jefferds gave testimony tending to^show that defendant’s dam was below the People’s Ditch, and diverted water which would flow to plaintiff’s land. There was other testimony to the same effect.
If it should be conceded upon the facts proved that the water stopped and diverted by defendant was the overflow from the [503]Peoples Ditch into a channel of Outside Creek, and that the People’s Bitch Company might have diverted the overflow, this would not authorize defendant to divert it, unless it appeared defendant had acquired the right from the People’s Ditch Company.
Appellant contends the court below erred in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to an instrument purporting to be an agreement between defendant and the People’s Bitch Company.
The corporate seals of the two companies are attached to the instrument, and it is subscribed:—
[corporate seal.] “Burk Miles,
[corporate seal.] “B. F. Moore,
“ President of the Kaweah Canal and Irrigation Company.”
The instrument was duly executed by the defendant.
Eo official designation is placed opposite to or below the name Burk Miles, but the signatures and seals are immediately preceded by the statement: “In witness whereof, the parties hereto have, by their duly authorized presidents, hereunto signed these presents, and have caused their respective corporate seals to be affixed thereto.”
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)