Bradford v. Woodworth

Citations

• 108 Cal. 684
• 41 P. 797
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 904

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Review of Conflicting Evidence.—Where the evidence is conflicting, the appellate court will not disturb a finding upon the ground that it is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.</p> <p>Sales—Agency—Personal Liability of Agent.—Where lumber was sold to the defendant to be used in the construction of a quartz-mill on a mine in charge of the defendant, who was the president and acting agent of a mining company, and the plaintiff dealt and contracted with the defendant as the owner of the mine, and as the principal in the transaction, in ignorance that the mining company was the owner of the mine, or that the lumber was to be used for the benefit of the mining company, the defendant is personally liable for the value of the lumber sold.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Minute-book of Corporation—Reference in Deposition—Proof of Identity.'—In an action against a defendant who is the president of a mining corporation, to enforce his personal liability for lumber sold, the minute-book of the corporation referred to in the deposition of the defendant, but not attached to the deposition nor returned with it, cannot be read in evidence without proof of its identity.</p> <p>Id.—Judgments against Corporation. —In an action to charge the president of a mining corporation as the principal in the sale of lumber, judgments in favor of other parties who had worked upon the mine and building for which the lumber was furnished, obtained against the corporation, and under which the mine and mill were sold under execution, are not competent evidence.</p> <p>Id.—Rebuttal—Explanation of Telegram.—Plaintiff may properly be permitted to explain in rebuttal a telegram introduced by the defendant for the purpose of contradicting his testimony.</p>