Bibb v. Bancroft (1889) · DecisionDepot

Bibb v. Bancroft

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

California Supreme Court Oct 30, 1889 No. No. 12,253Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that it will not interfere with a verdict based on conflicting evidence where the testimony sustains the complaint and there was no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or instructions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict regarding the existence of a contract.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of agency.
Whether the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the well-established rule, therefore, this court will not interfere with the verdict or the judgment.”

“The fact of agency, actual and ostensible, was so clearly established by the evidence, direct and indirect, that the verdict could not well have been other than it was without the testimony objected to.”

Synopsis

Agency—Instructions.—In an Action for Breach of a Contract by which plaintiff was to remove debris for defendant, the evidence showed that plaintiff, when seeking the contract, was referred by defendant to' one C., and was told that anything he would do with him would be all right. On the question of agency, the court instructed as to the law of ostensible agency. Held, that the instruction was not irrelevant on the ground that an express agency only was shown by the evidence.

Agency—Evidence.—The Complaint Stated That “The Parties hereto entered into a contract,” etc., and that “defendant agreed with said plaintiffs to pay them the prices stated,” etc. Held, that evidence of either an express or ostensible agency in the person who made the contract with plaintiffs was admissible.

PATERSON, J. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that on the fourteenth day of May, 1886, they entered into an [152]agreement with the defendant, by the terms of which they were to remove certain debris from a lot owned by the defendant in the city and county of San Francisco, and that they were to be paid a certain price for each load of materials so removed by them. The defendant denied in his answer that any contract had been made between him and the plaintiffs. This denial raised the principal issue presented at the trial. The testimony fully sustains the allegations of the complaint. The most that can be claimed fairly by the defendant is that there is a conflict in the evidence. Under the well-established rule, therefore, this court will not interfere with the verdict or the judgment. We see no error in the rulings of the court in admitting testimony. The fact of agency, actual and ostensible, was so clearly established by the evidence, direct and indirect, that the verdict could not well have been other than it was without the testimony objected to. There was no error in the instructions of the court. Under the pleadings, it was proper for the plaintiffs to introduce any evidence tending to show an agency, either express or ostensible. That there was in Cook an express agency of some kind concerning the subject matter there can be no doubt whatever. The only question was as to its extent. The plaintiffs were not obliged under' their complaint to rely upon evidence of actual agency in Cook. Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: Works, J.; Fox, J.

Bibb v. Bancroft

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief