McCarthy v. Mount Tecarte Land & Water Co.

Citations

• 111 Cal. 328
• 43 P. 956
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 583

Syllabus

<p>Account Stated — New Contract—Balance of Account — Item of Credit — Subsequent Agreement for Release — Finding against Evidence.—A contract created by an account stated is a new and independent contract, as much so as if a note had been given for the balance of the account; and where an account stated upon a particular date is declared upon for a sum equal to the amount of wages, exclusive of any credit, hut an item of credit in fact appears in the account stated on that date, for the purchase price of certain shares of stock, in a specified sum, a finding of an account stated on that date for the amount of the charges only, omitting the credit and the balance of the account, is against the evidence, notwithstanding there is evidence that at a subsequent time there was an agreement to release the credit, and to permit the account to he presented for further examination and allowance.</p> <p>Id.—Opening of Account Stated—Cause of Action—Support of Judgment.—If an account stated at a certain date, which is sued upon, was afterward opened up, it cannot stand as a cause of action; nor can a judgment for the aggregate amount of the items of charges he sustained upon a stated account which shows a credit and a balance of a smaller sum.</p> <p>.Corporations—Services of Stockholder and Director as Superintendent and Manager—Implied Contract for Compensation.—A stockholder and director of a corporation is not entitled to compensation for services rendered by him as superintendent and general manager, unless there is a contract, express or implied, for such compensation; and when the recovery of compensation depends upon an implied contract, arising oufc of and inferable from the situation and relation of the parties, evidence is admissible to prove any fact which would throw light upon that relation, or tend to show the intention of the parties; and it is error to refuse to allow evidence to what extent the plaintiff was a stockholder of the corporation, and that it was a