From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krumdick v. White

Supreme Court of California
Dec 1, 1891
92 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lake County, and from an order denying a new trial.

         COUNSEL

          Yell & Seawell, and Bond & Fishback, for Appellant.

          Stanly, Stoney & Hayes, and R. W. Crump, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Foote, C. Fitzgerald, C., and Belcher, C., concurred.

         OPINION

          FOOTE, Judge

         This action of claim and delivery for certain personal property was brought by the plaintiff as executrix of the last will and testament of her deceased husband, William Krumdick, against the defendant, White, who had purchased the property from one J. F. Edmunds, after Krumdick's death, of which White had notice. Edmunds claimed the same by virtue of a written instrument made by Krumdick in his lifetime, while he lay wounded and unable to transact business.

         The only claim under which Edmunds could have any right to sell the property, and transfer the title thereto to White, must be based upon the terms of the written instrument which Krumdick made to Edmunds.

         If at Krumdick's death the powers of agency given to Edmunds ceased under that instrument, then he could not sell the property, and under the testator's will the executrix would have the right to the possession thereof.

         The instrument was one which constituted Edmunds the agent of Krumdick while disabled, to carry on his business as a hauler of freights, and to do all acts in that behalf which Krumdick could. But it did not vest any interest in Edmunds to the subject-matter of the agency confided and intrusted to him, and at Krumdick's death the power of Edmunds to sell ceased as to White, who had notice of Krumdick's death before the former purchased the property. (Civ. Code, sec. 2356.)

         It is plain, therefore, that the jury found contrary to the evidence, under the sixth instruction granted by the court for the plaintiff.

         In this view of the matter, it becomes unnecessary to discuss any other point made, and we advise that the judgment and order be reversed.

         The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are reversed.


Summaries of

Krumdick v. White

Supreme Court of California
Dec 1, 1891
92 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Krumdick v. White

Case Details

Full title:JENNETTE KRUMDICK, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. DANIEL W. WHITE…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 1, 1891

Citations

92 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1891)
28 P. 219

Citing Cases

Russell v. United Pacific Ins. Co.

[1] We paraphrase the Reachi rule: Where it is necessary to defend on the merits in order to defeat a…

Huntoon v. Southern T. C. Bank

The beneficiaries of the trust had taken no action to compel performance of the acts required to be done, nor…