Arnold v. Johnson

5 P. 796, 66 Cal. 402, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 457
California Supreme Court·Decided February 3, 1885·No. No. 8,562·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Court.

The difference between this case and Bar-stow v. Savage Mining Co., 64 Cal. 388, is, that in this case the owner of the stock voluntarily delivered the indorsed certificate to the person who pledged it, while in that, the indorsed certificates were stolen from the owner of the stock. In this case the owner allowed another to assume the apparent ownership of the stock. In that, the owner did not allow another to assume the apparent ownership. The distinction is an important one, and brings this case within the rule stated in NcNeil v. Tenth National Bank, 46 N. Y. 325, cited approvingly in Barstow v. Savage Mining Co., supra ( Vide Ambrose v. Evans, 66 Cal.)

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

Arnold v. Johnson, 5 P. 796, 66 Cal. 402, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 457 (Cal. 1885).

5 P. 796 (Arnold v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schumann-Heink & Co. v. United States National Bank
291 P. 684 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Powers v. Pacific Diesel Engine Co.
274 P. 512 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
Mancini v. Setaro
232 P. 495 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Fowles v. National Bank of California
140 P. 271 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Graves v. Mono Lake Hydraulic Mining Co.
22 P. 665 (California Supreme Court, 1889)