Wittenbrock v. Parker
Citations
- 102 Cal. 93
- 24 L.R.A. 197
- 36 P. 374
- 1894 Cal. LEXIS 603
Syllabus
<p>Constructive Notice—Partnership—Attorneys at Law.—Where two attorneys are engaged as copartners in the practice of law, the knowledge acquired by one member of the firm, obtained while transacting such business and relating thereto, is constructive notice to the firm.</p> <p>Id.—Agency of Attorneys—Notice to Joint Agents.—An attorney is an agent for his client within the scope of his employment, and two or more attorneys practising together as copartners are joint agents as to the business transacted for their clients as such copartners, and actual notice to one of two or more such joint agents is constructive notice to all.</p> <p>Id.—Effect of Constructive Notice to Joint Agent—New Principal Not Bound.—Where one of a firm of attorneys or joint agents is merely chargeable with constructive notice of a transaction had with his co-partner or co-agent, but has no actual knowledge thereof, a new client or principal who employs him specially for the transaction of other business is not bound by such constructive notice.</p> <p>Id.—Notice to Agent, When Notice to Principal.-—Notice to an agent in order to be notice to his principal must be given to him while acting in the course of his employment, or at least must he present to his mind at the time he is acting as such agent, and be of such character as it is his duty to communicate to his principal.</p> <p>Id.—Mistake of One Partner in Release of Mortgage—Search of Title by Copartner for New Mortgage.—Where one of a firm of attorneys made a mistake in the satisfaction of a prior mortgage, which mistake was wholly unknown to his copartner, who subsequently at the request of another client examined and reported upon the title, and prepared notes and mortgages for him upon the same land, upon which money was advanced without actual knowledge of the rights of the prior mortgagee, the subsequent mortgagee is not chargeable with constructive notice of the mistake in the release and satisfaction of the prior mortgage.</p> <
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court· 1971-12-02· cited 371×
- Drury v. FrankeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1933-02-28· cited 98×
- Freeman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1955-04-29· cited 61×
- Lawall v. GromanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-04-12· cited 59×
- Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1948-09-20· cited 42×
- Allied Grape Growers v. Bronco Wine Co.California Court of Appeal· 1988-07-29· cited 38×
- Deering v. HolcombWashington Supreme Court· 1901-12-13· cited 32×
- Schiffman v. Richfield Oil Co.California Supreme Court· 1937-01-29· cited 30×
- Pure in Heart Baptist Church v. Fulton (In Re Fulton)E.D. Michigan· 1980-04-21· cited 24×
- Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1951-07-03· cited 22×
- Gaskill v. Northern Assurance Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-06-02· cited 21×
- John D. Sibley v. The Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, and Board of Commissioners of the Mississippi State Bar, Intervenor-AppellantFifth Circuit· 1979-06-20· cited 7×
- Colwell v. Grandin Investment Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1922-11-04· cited 6×
- Merchants Holding Corp., Ltd. v. GreyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-05-11· cited 5×
- Dunham v. TravisUtah Supreme Court· 1902-07-05· cited 5×
- Cornell v. CornellNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1953-03-10· cited 4×
- Home Savings & Loan Co. v. O'Reilly (In Re O'Reilly)N.D. Ohio· 1983-02-17· cited 3×
- Schwabacher Brothers & Co. v. Orient InsuranceWashington Supreme Court· 1918-04-26· cited 1×
- Ticket Track v. DmvCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2002-07-31
- Roche v. HydeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2020-07-01
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Weisser v. . DenisonNew York Court of Appeals· 1854-04-05· cited 64×
- Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 57×
- Watson v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-11-29· cited 56×
- National Security Bank v. CushmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1877-01-08· cited 50×
- Hunter v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 43×
- Trentor v. PothenSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1891-06-08· cited 38×
- Schultz v. McLeanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-02-09· cited 33×
- Russell v. SweezeyMichigan Supreme Court· 1871-01-10· cited 28×
- Donald v. BealsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 14×
- May v. BorelCalifornia Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 6×
- Connelly v. PeckCalifornia Supreme Court· 1856-07-01· cited 4×
- Goodwin v. DeanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1883-01-15· cited 2×
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.