The fact that the corporate seal was affixed afforded a prima facie showing that the officer executing the paper had due authority to execute it. (10 Cyc. 1018; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 5105; Southern California Colony Assn. v. Bustamente, 52 Cal. 192; Schallard v. Eel River etc. Co., 70 Cal. 144, [11. Pac. 590]; Crescent City Wharf Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 286, [19 P. 426]; Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124, [45 P. 534].) If the documents offered by plaintiff had been admitted in evidence, as they should have been, there would have been no ground for a nonsuit.

[3] An instrument signed by officers of a corporation, purportedly on its behalf, and bearing its seal, is prima facie evidence that the officers signing such executed the same under authority duly given them by the board of directors. (Corp. Code, § 833; Thomas V. Peterson, 213 Cal. 672, 674 [ 3 P.2d 306]; Potts Drug Co. v. Benedict, 156 Cal. 322, 327 [ 104 P. 432, 25 L.R.A.N.S. 609]; Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124, 127 [45 P. 534]; Sime v. Malouf, 95 Cal.App.2d 82, 93-94 [ 212 P.2d 946, 213 P.2d 788]; Solorza v. Park Water Co., 86 Cal.App.2d 653, 659-661 [ 195 P.2d 523].) [4] Likewise, a certification by the secretary of a corporation, bearing its corporate seal, that the board of directors adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of the instrument by designated officers is evidence of the authority of those officers to execute that instrument.

This is prima facie evidence that the deed of a corporation was duly authorized by the board of directors. (Angell Ames on Corporations, sec. 224; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300, [28 P. 1049]; Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, [99 Am. Dec. 300]; Southern Cal. Colony Assn. v. Bustamente, 52 Cal. 192; Crescent City Wharf Lighter Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 286, [19 P. 426]; Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124, [45 P. 534].) There is attached to the deed a writing signed by nine stockholders, whereby they ratify, confirm and consent to the deed, and to this is attached the certificate of the secretary, attested by the seal of the corporation, to the effect that the said stockholders are the owners of all the stock of the company.

McNeil v. Boston Chamber of Commerce, 154 Mass. 277. Metropolitan Telephone Telegraph Co. v. New York New Jersey Telephone Co. 17 Stew. 568, 573. Burleigh v. Ford, 61 N.H. 360. Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124. There was evidence that one of the members of the committee "stepped out" when a motion to appoint him agent of the executive committee at a salary of $5,000 a year, was voted on.