Montgomery v. Pacific Coast Land Bureau

Citations

• 94 Cal. 284
• 29 P. 640
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 675

Syllabus

<p>Vendor and Purchaser — Auction Sale of Land — Terms of Sale — Construction of Printed Catalogue — Warranty of Title. — Where an auction sale of land was announced by means of a printed catalogue, in which, a number of different tracts belonging to different owners were described, and the terms of credit, differing as to different parcels, were placed at the end of each description, a statement at the end of the catalogue, warranting the title perfect, allowing time for a search thereof, and requiring a deposit of ten per cent upon the fall of the hammer, applies generally to each separate tract of land described therein, and not merely to the one which immediately precedes it.</p> <p>Id.—Action by Vendor—Money had and Received — Deposit with Auctioneer — Authority to Sell — Ratification — Wrongful Return of Deposit — Liability of Agent. — Where no antecedent written authority from the owner of land to make an auction sale thereof is shown, and a corporation engaged in the business of selling lands upon commission, and assuming to act as the agent of the owner of land, sold the land at auction, and received a deposit of ten per cent of the purchase-money, which was returned to the purchaser for a supposed defect in the title, the act of the owner of the land in tendering a conveyance to the intending purchaser in accordance with the contract made by the agent, and in notifying the agent, in writing, not to return to the purchaser the money deposited, before it was returned, is sufficient to show a ratification of the sale and to sustain an action by the owner of the land to recover the amount of the deposit from the agent, less proper charges and commissions, as money had and received to his use, upon a showing that the record title was perfect.</p> <p>Id. — Assumption of Authority by Agent —Prima Facie Evidence. — Where one sells land of another, claiming authority to do so, such assumption of authority is, as against himself, at least prima facie evidence of wri