Skip to main content
· 10/15/1871

Atkins v. Gamble

Citations

  • 42 Cal. 86

Syllabus

<p>Sale of Mining Stocks by Bailee.—A. and G. each owned shares of stock in a mining company, all the shares being of equal value; A. delivered a number of his shares to G., to he held as collateral security for money advanced by G., to pay assessments upon the stock of A., and to he sold by G. whenever he could obtain not less than five hundred dollars per share; G. transferred certain of A.’s shares for less than the price named, in fulfillment by G. of a contract for a sale of his own stock, and, on settlement with A., G. transferred an equal number of his own shares to A., exchanging receipts with him in full of ail demands. Subsequently A. sued G. for the amount of money received for the shares sold, alleging that the settlement had been procured by false representations on the part of G.; and G. defended by showing that he transferred the shares in fulfillment of a contract for the sale of his own stock, and that he at all times had and held for A.’s use an equal number of shares of equal value, and that he had so replaced them. Meld, that G. did not become responsible for the proceeds of the sale of the shares. The technical breach of trust presents a case of damnum absque injuria.</p> <p>Bight oe Bailor to Demand Proceeds oe Wrongeul Sale.—If the bailee of personal property sell it, in violation of his authority, the owner may ordinarily ratify the transaction and demand the proceeds of the sale.</p> <p>Bight oe Owner to Becover Specieic Property.—The owner of personal property which has been wrongfully converted is ordinarily, entitled to recover his specific property, or its value, and cannot be compelled to accept other property of the same kind and equal value in lieu of that which was converted.</p> <p>Idem.—Shares of stock in a corporation stand upon a different footing, because they are mere evidence of interest in the business of the corporation; and, if all the shares are of equal value, there can he no reason for preferring one share to another.</p

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “a place open to the public” is not a “private place” within the meaning of the invasion of privacy statute
  • “a place open to the public” is not a “private place” within the meaning of the invasion of privacy statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crockett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.