Argenti v. Brannan

California Supreme Court

Argenti v. Brannan

5 Cal. 351, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 140

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 351 (Argenti v. Brannan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Argenti v. Brannan, 5 Cal. 351, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 140 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The latter purchased from Strong and knew him alone, and this cannot be relieved by a mere notice from the plaintiff that the lumber belonged to him. The notice at least recognized the right of Strong to sell the lumber, and so does the form of the action. Pro tanto, Strong was the agent pf the plaintiff without having disclosed his agency, and was entitled to collect the purchase price. The mere notice of Argénti to the defendant was insufficient to interrupt the completion of the performance of the contract. The defendant had the right to disbelieve it and disregard it. He had assumed a liability to 'another. His ditty was to fulfil it, unless legal steps had been taken to prevent him.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The latter purchased from Strong and knew him alone, and this cannot be relieved by a mere notice from the plaintiff that the lumber belonged to him. The notice at least recognized the right of Strong to sell the lumber, and so does the form of the action. Pro tanto, Strong was the agent pf the plaintiff without having disclosed his agency, and was entitled to collect the purchase price. The mere notice of Argénti to the defendant was insufficient to interrupt the completion of the performance of the contract. The defendant had the right to disbelieve it and disregard it. He had assumed a liability to 'another. His ditty was to fulfil it, unless legal steps had been taken to prevent him.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 351, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argenti-v-brannan-cal-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack