Purser v. Eagle Lake Land & Irrigation Co.
Before: Fleet
Synopsis
Corporations — Ratification of Mortgagee-Evidence—Authenticated Copy of Resolution of Directors—Presumption.—In an action to foreclose a mortgage against a corporation, a certified copy of a resolution of its board of directors duly attested by the signatures of the president and secretary, under the corporate seal, showing a ratification of the mortgage in suit by authority of the board of directors, is admissible in evidence, as being presumptively the act of the corporation; and it is not necessary to produce the record of such resolution, nor to show that no record thereof had been kept; and in the absence of any countervailing proof, the recitals of such certified copy are binding upon the corporation.
Id.—Mortgage—Conveyance upon Condition—Option to Pay in Lands and Water Rights—Default—Election to Foreclose.—Where a corporation, to secure its indebtedness evidenced by note, conveyed its property to plaintiff, upon condition that if it should, within a specified period, convey or cause to be conveyed to him certain other described lands and water rights, the conveyance should be void, whereupon plaintiff was to pay one dollar per acre therefor, and the corporation was to clear and plow the laud in a manner suitable for seeding and cultivation, upon the completion of which work plaintiff was to pay a further sum per acre, such instrument is a mortgage, merely giving the corporation the option to pay the indebtedness in land and water rights within the specified period; nor is the plaintiff required to perforin any act to put the corporation in default, but upon its failure to make such conveyance or to pay the indebtedness within such period, the plaint:ff may elect to foreclose the mortgage, and is not required to make any tender or demand any conveyance of the land and water rights, even if he had a right under the contract so to do.
Id.—Independent Covenants.—By the terms of the contract plaintiff was only required to pay one dollar per acre, on condition that the land and water rights were conveyed by the corporation within the time limited; and the covenants in regard to the clearing of the land and the payment of an additional price per acre, and the making of the deeds, were independent and in no sense contemporaneous or dependent conditions or covenants, nor could plaintiff be required to pay or tender such further payment until after the making of the conveyances.
Van Fleet, J. Action to foreclose a mortgage given by defendant Eagle Lake Land and Irrigation Company to secure a promissory note of the corporation.
Judgment was- for plaintiff, and defendants appeal therefrom and from an order denying them a new trial.
[1411]. It is claimed that the finding that the corporation executed the mortgage in suit is not sustained by the evidence. This is based upon the contention that no authority was shown in the officers of the corporation to execute that instrument, and that there was no sufficient evidence of ratification of their act. The original instrument was shown to have been lost, and a certified copy of the record thereof in the county recorder’s office was introduced in evidence. From this copy it appeared that the instrument had been signed and acknowledged in due form by the president and secretary of the corporation, but it did not appear that the seal of the corporation had been affixed thereto, bio proof was offered to show that the seal was attached to the original instrument, nor was there evidence tending to show any antecedent authority by the corporation for the execution of the mortgage; but plaintiff produced and was permitted, against the objection of defendants, to put in evidence an instrument purporting to be a ratification of the execution of the mortgage. This instrument was in form a certified copy of a resolution by the board of directors of the corporation, duly attested by the signatures of the president and secretary under the corporate seal; it recites that the resolution was unanimously adopted at a special meeting of the board called for the purpose, refers to and identifies the note and mortgage in suit, and certain other notes, and resolves that the execution of said instruments was “for the best interests of said corporation, and each, every, and all of said acts are hereby ratified and confirmed, and are hereby declared to be the acts of this corporation, with the full and unqualified approval of the directors of this corporation,” The objection was, not that this paper, if established, did not show a ratification, but that its contents could only be competently proven by the production of the record thereof in the books of the corporation, or after a showing that no such record had been kept. We think the resolution was properly admitted. It was shown .that it had been furnished to plaintiff by the [142]
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)