Lofton v. Perkins

California Court of Appeal

Lofton v. Perkins

45 P.2d 832, 7 Cal. App. 2d 270, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 573

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 29, 1935

DocketCiv. No. 10324

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 P.2d 832 (Lofton v. Perkins) 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

Lofton v. Perkins, 45 P.2d 832, 7 Cal. App. 2d 270, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 573 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, P. J.

Appeal by one of the defendants, National Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation. Perkins, one of the defendants, was a real estate broker and appellant was his official bondsman under the Real Estate Broker’s Act.

Plaintiff-respondent Luna Lofton had for some time entrusted money to Perkins to loan on personalty. They agreed that two trust deed notes should be purchased. Perkins reported this as done and delivered two promissory notes, in form of trust deed notes, but no deeds. The evidence which was stipulated in toto compels the conclusion that there never were any trust deeds and that the transaction was fraudulent. Plaintiff unfortunately is out her money, but appellant is not obliged to pay because the transaction is outside the terms of the bond and the law requiring it. (Real Estate Broker’s Act, Act 112, vol. 1, Leering’s General Laws 1931, p. 25.) The surety is not liable where the basis of the claim is the purchase of an existing security. (Layne v. Malmgren, 99 Cal. App. 742 [279 Pac. 670].)

The judgment is reversed and the trial court is instructed to enter judgment for defendant, who is appellant here.

Crail, J., concurred.

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

STEPHENS, P. J.

Appeal by one of the defendants, National Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation. Perkins, one of the defendants, was a real estate broker and appellant was his official bondsman under the Real Estate Broker’s Act.

Plaintiff-respondent Luna Lofton had for some time entrusted money to Perkins to loan on personalty. They agreed that two trust deed notes should be purchased. Perkins reported this as done and delivered two promissory notes, in form of trust deed notes, but no deeds. The evidence which was stipulated in toto compels the conclusion that there never were any trust deeds and that the transaction was fraudulent. Plaintiff unfortunately is out her money, but appellant is not obliged to pay because the transaction is outside the terms of the bond and the law requiring it. (Real Estate Broker’s Act, Act 112, vol. 1, Leering’s General Laws 1931, p. 25.) The surety is not liable where the basis of the claim is the purchase of an existing security. (Layne v. Malmgren, 99 Cal. App. 742 [279 Pac. 670].)

The judgment is reversed and the trial court is instructed to enter judgment for defendant, who is appellant here.

Crail, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 P.2d 832, 7 Cal. App. 2d 270, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lofton-v-perkins-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack