Fisher v. Salmon
| Decision Date | 01 April 1851 |
| Citation | 1 Cal. 413 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | FISHER v. SALMON. |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Nathaniel Holland, for Plaintiff.
John Chetwood, for Defendant.
By the Court, HASTINGS, Ch. J. This was an action on a guaranty of the appellant Salmon of the note of Katherine Salmon, drawn in favor of respondent for the sum of $24,000, dated November 2, A.D. 1849, and payable, one half in six months, and the balance in twelve months. Both the note and guaranty are between the original parties. The evidence discloses that the respondent was the attorney in fact of the non-resident heirs of one James Scott, deceased, and that the appellant was the attorney of Katherine Salmon, a resident of France, acting under a power of attorney, authorizing her attorney to settle certain mercantile business, and not giving him authority to make investments in real estate, or to do anything other than to wind up and adjust the affairs of a mercantile house in the City of New York, which had been conducted in the name of Katherine Salmon, The consideration of the note was a deed of conveyance of certain lots in the City of San Francisco, executed by the respondent in his own name, representing that he was the attorney and agent of certain heirs, and was executed under his hand and seal, and not in the name of the principals. It is not necessary to cite authorities to show that such a deed is a nullity as to the principals of the agent Fisher, and the most that could be made of it, would be a mere contract on his part to procure a conveyance, but even as a contract it is not binding in law upon the principals.
It is equally clear that, as to Katherine Salmon, the note is also a nullity, her agent having no authority to execute such a note, so that, as between the principals respectively represented by the parties to this suit, the whole transaction was and is void. The contract, then, not being of any validity as against the heirs of Scott, nor as to Katherine Salmon, it results that the question of the liability of the agents of these parties, is to be investigated. Fisher was not the owner of the lots, did not bind the owners to convey, and could not convey in his own name, but Salmon guaranteed the payment of the note. The consideration of this guaranty was in substance the conveyance of the lots, which being invalid and void, it follows that there was not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks
...form it may have been, may, as between the immediate parties to it, be the subject of inquiry." 3 R. C. L. 924. ¶9 See Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413, 54 Am. Dec. 297; Folsom v. Mussey, 8 Greenl. [Me.] 400, 23 Am. Dec. 522; Harris v. Alcock, 10 G. & J. 226, 32 Am. Dec. 158; Schmittler v. Simo......
-
Bushlow v. MTC Fin.
...permitted to act on behalf of the lender and the lender's successors and assigns. Id. at 260; Dkt. No. 32-1, Ex. 1 at 2. Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413 (1951), also does not help Mr. Bushlow. In that case, the California Supreme Court held that in signing a deed of conveyance in his own name,......
-
Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks
...form it may have been, may, as between the immediate parties to it, be the subject of inquiry." 3 R. C. L. 924. See Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413, 54 Am. Dec. 297; Folsom v. Mussey, 8 Greenl. [Me.] 400, 23 Am. 522; Harris v. Alcock, 10 Gill & J. [Md.] 226, 32 Am. Dec. 158; Schmittler v. Simo......
-
Rolater's Estate, Matter of
...Neither does a power to wind up a mercantile business include power to go in debt for or to purchase real estate. Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413, 54 Am.Dec. 297 (1951). And, more pertinent to our inquiry here, such granted power carries with it no authority to make a gift of the principal's p......