Knoch v. Haizlip

1 Citing case

  1. Bank of America v. State Bd. of Equal

    209 Cal.App.2d 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 40 times
    In Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization, 209 Cal.App.2d 780, 26 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1963), the court found that the betterment of a bank's relations with its customers was a sufficient benefit to render the sale of personal checks at a loss a taxable "business" activity.

    Thus the agent may be sued thereon individually and he himself may sue and recover on the contract as an individual. ( Johnson v. Benton, 73 Cal.App. 571, 574 [ 239 P. 63]; London v. Zachary, 92 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 207 P.2d 1067]; Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 151 [ 124 P. 998]; Patterson v. John P. Mills etc., Inc., 203 Cal. 419, 421 [ 264 P. 759]; Geary St., etc. R.R. Co. v. Rolph, 189 Cal. 59, 64 [ 207 P. 539]; J.M. Wildman, Inc. v. Stults, 176 Cal.App.2d 670, 674 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 651]; Allen v. Dailey, 92 Cal.App. 308, 315 [ 268 P. 404]; Civ. Code, ยง 2343) [15] The Bank, having placed itself in a position to enjoy the advantages of the sale must also bear the obligations of the contract of sale including the statutory duties inherent therein.