Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Cal. 45

Shaver v. Ocean Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1862

California Supreme Court · decided 1862-07-01

<p>Appeal from the Eifth Judicial District.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Relies on Haskell v. Cornish

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1966

4 state decisions

1018621870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

¶2This is an action on a promissory note in the following form: “ Three months after date the Ocean Mining Company promise to pay W. G. Bright or order one thousand dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of two per cent, per month.” The note is signed, “ James Harter, Trustee, S. N. Stranahan,” both of whom are made defendants, and charged as makers jointly with the company, which is a corporation. No answer being filed, judgment was entered against all of the defendants; and from this judgment Harter and Stranahan appeal.

¶3The complaint alleges that the note was executed by Harter and Stranaham, as well as by the company; but the note itself, a copy of which is set out in the complaint, shows that it was not their intention to bind themselves personally. The promise stated in the note is that of the company, and by failing to answer, the note is admitted as a company obligation, and this being the character of the instrument, as appearing upon its face, we regard it as binding upon the company alone. It is evident that Harter and Stranahan signed it merely as agents, and as a judgment has been recovered upon it against the company, their authority to execute it cannot *47be questioned; its language shows that they executed it for the company and not for themselves. The law governing the case is distinctly laid down in Haskell v. Cornish (13 Cal. 45).

¶4The judgment is reversed as to Harter and Stranahan, and the cause remanded.

/21/cal/45 · .json · Public domain