Hinton v. Keefe

California Court of Appeal

Hinton v. Keefe

275 P. 503, 97 Cal. App. 397, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 800

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 6, 1929

DocketDocket No. 6610.

StatusPublished

This text of 275 P. 503 (Hinton v. Keefe) 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

Hinton v. Keefe, 275 P. 503, 97 Cal. App. 397, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

In her first cause of action plaintiff sued for $1,000 on the theory that defendant had obtained that sum in the nature of an undisclosed profit as plaintiff's agent in the consummation of a sale of personal property. In her second cause of action she sued on a common count for money had and received, on the same theory. The case was tried before the court and resulted in a judgment for the defendant.

[1] The trial court found that defendant had not acted as plaintiff's agent in the transaction and that she had not received any money for the use or benefit of the plaintiff. The evidence fully supports both findings. Having failed to prove the agency the entire case falls.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Koford, P.J., concurred. *Page 398

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

In her first cause of action plaintiff sued for $1,000 on the theory that defendant had obtained that sum in the nature of an undisclosed profit as plaintiff's agent in the consummation of a sale of personal property. In her second cause of action she sued on a common count for money had and received, on the same theory. The case was tried before the court and resulted in a judgment for the defendant.

[1] The trial court found that defendant had not acted as plaintiff's agent in the transaction and that she had not received any money for the use or benefit of the plaintiff. The evidence fully supports both findings. Having failed to prove the agency the entire case falls.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Koford, P.J., concurred. *Page 398

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 P. 503, 97 Cal. App. 397, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinton-v-keefe-calctapp-1929.