Baxter v. McKinlay

California Supreme Court

Baxter v. McKinlay

16 Cal. 76, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 166

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 Cal. 76 (Baxter v. McKinlay) 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

Baxter v. McKinlay, 16 Cal. 76, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 166 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

The defendants are charged-in this case with a fraudulent appropriation of money as the agents of the plaintiffs. We are asked to reverse the judgment, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence. The proceedings seem to have been fairly conducted, and there is certainly some evidence to support the verdict. The Court below refused a new trial, and we do not feel ourselves at-liberty to interfere. The point" in relation to the demand is not well talien. The authority of the person who made it was not questioned, and the defendants cannot now object that such authority was not exhibited at the time the demand was made. (See Payne v. Smith, 12 N. H. 34; Connah v. Hale, 23 Wend. 460.) In the former case the Court said: “ Where a demand is made by attorney, the party has a right to require reasonable evidence of the authority of the individual to make it; but if no exception is taken at the time, then a subsequent commencement of a suit by the party in whose behalf it was made, claiming under such demand, is a ratification of it, and is prima facie evidence, at least, that it was made by his authority.” The latter case is equally pointed.

We think the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

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

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

The defendants are charged-in this case with a fraudulent appropriation of money as the agents of the plaintiffs. We are asked to reverse the judgment, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence. The proceedings seem to have been fairly conducted, and there is certainly some evidence to support the verdict. The Court below refused a new trial, and we do not feel ourselves at-liberty to interfere. The point" in relation to the demand is not well talien. The authority of the person who made it was not questioned, and the defendants cannot now object that such authority was not exhibited at the time the demand was made. (See Payne v. Smith, 12 N. H. 34; Connah v. Hale, 23 Wend. 460.) In the former case the Court said: “ Where a demand is made by attorney, the party has a right to require reasonable evidence of the authority of the individual to make it; but if no exception is taken at the time, then a subsequent commencement of a suit by the party in whose behalf it was made, claiming under such demand, is a ratification of it, and is prima facie evidence, at least, that it was made by his authority.” The latter case is equally pointed.

We think the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Cal. 76, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxter-v-mckinlay-cal-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack