DocketNumber: Sac. No. 474
Citation Numbers: 123 Cal. 607
Judges: Chipman
Filed Date: 3/3/1899
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Plaintiff sues to recover the sum of seven hundred and seventy-one dollars and fifty cents, the amount of defendant’s check, as follows:
“No. 1. Red Bluff, Cal, Jan. 20 1897.
“Bank of Tehama County of Red Bluff, Calif.
“Pay to J. B. Jarnatt, or order, $771.50, seven hundred and seventy-one 50-100 dollars.
“PEAKE BROS.”
The amended complaint alleges due presentation to the bank, its refusal to pay, notice of nonpayment to defendants before action commenced, notice by defendants to the bank before presentation for payment not to pay said check if presented, and nonpayment by defendants.
The answer alleges want of consideration for the check, and also sets up facts tending to show that plaintiff obtained the check by fraudulent representations. The court found the allegations of the complaint to he true; and found that the check was not given without consideration, nor was it issued through plaintiff’s false or fraudulent representations, and that the allegations of fraud are not sustained by the evidence. Judgment passed for plaintiff, from which and from the order denying motion for a new trial defendants appeal.
The evidence of plaintiff tends to establish the following facts: One Scoggins executed his note to the German Savings & Loan Society of San Francisco, which he secured by mortgage to it
The contention of defendants is, that there was an agreement between the parties that plaintiff was to give defendants the benefit of his commissions as receiver, which they affirm were represented by plaintiff to be a sum equal to the amount of the check, and that plaintiff falsely represented the facts to defendants, and that there was, therefore, no consideration for the check. The court found against defendants and in favor of plaintiff upon these issues of fact, and, as the evidence is conflicting, the findings cannot be disturbed.
It is further contended that the contract evidenced by the check was void under section 1667 of the Civil Code, because contrary to an express provision of law and contrary to the policy of express law, and also contrary to good morals, and, therefore, cannot support the action. For the reason that there is a conflict in the evidence, introduced by defendant’s to establish the foregoing propositions, we cannot pursue the argument of the learned counsel as to the facts. There is sufficient evidence to support the findings.
The stress of appellants’ contention lies in their claim that a receiver appointed by the court in such a case as this becomes a public officer charged with a trust as such officer, and that he cannot, while holding that office, enter into any contract for private gain respecting the subject of the trust. It nowhere appears that plaintiff did any act as receiver by which defendants
We can perceive no reason why such a transaction is obnoxious to any principles of law or sound morals.
The judgment and order should be affirmed.
Pringle, C., and Britt, C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.
Garoutte, J., Van Dyke, J., Harrison, J.