Boyd v. Custom Furniture & Lamp Studio, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Boyd v. Custom Furniture & Lamp Studio, Inc.

279 P. 1060, 100 Cal. App. 231, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 317

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 2, 1929

DocketDocket No. 5642.

StatusPublished

This text of 279 P. 1060 (Boyd v. Custom Furniture & Lamp Studio, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd v. Custom Furniture & Lamp Studio, Inc., 279 P. 1060, 100 Cal. App. 231, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 317 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinions

YORK, J.

Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against the appellant. corporation for certain sums found to be due for services rendered under an oral contract, and certain sums as damages through loss of employment, the total judgment being the sum of $1688.

There was evidence which showed that at the time such agreement was made the general manager of said corporation, who was also the majority stockholder and president thereof, made the' agreement with the plaintiff, upon which the court predicated its judgment. There was evidence that no stock was owned by anyone excepting the man who made this agreement, except certain qualifying shares. It was somewhat uncertain as to how many shares were really issued, but M. Leland Stanford, the man who was so acting as general manager, really held 5,520 shares, and various other persons held some 400 shares, it being shown that approximately 5,900 shares had been issued.

*232 There was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court in spite of the contradictory evidence introduced by the appellant, and this court cannot, therefore, disturb the judgment herein, which is drawn in accordance with said findings.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Houser, J., concurred in the judgment.

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

YORK, J.

Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against the appellant. corporation for certain sums found to be due for services rendered under an oral contract, and certain sums as damages through loss of employment, the total judgment being the sum of $1688.

There was evidence which showed that at the time such agreement was made the general manager of said corporation, who was also the majority stockholder and president thereof, made the' agreement with the plaintiff, upon which the court predicated its judgment. There was evidence that no stock was owned by anyone excepting the man who made this agreement, except certain qualifying shares. It was somewhat uncertain as to how many shares were really issued, but M. Leland Stanford, the man who was so acting as general manager, really held 5,520 shares, and various other persons held some 400 shares, it being shown that approximately 5,900 shares had been issued.

*232 There was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court in spite of the contradictory evidence introduced by the appellant, and this court cannot, therefore, disturb the judgment herein, which is drawn in accordance with said findings.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Houser, J., concurred in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 P. 1060, 100 Cal. App. 231, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-custom-furniture-lamp-studio-inc-calctapp-1929.