Opinion

Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.

  • 33 Cal. 183
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 15, 1867
Status
Published
Author
Shatter
On the bench
Currey, Sawyer, Shatter
Cited by
25 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.9%

The opinion

Shatter, J., concurring specially:

I concur in the judgment, and on the ground that if a person not duly authorized make a contract on behalf of a trading corporation, and the corporation take and hold the benefit derived from such contract, it will be held to have *199 made the contract its own by ratification or adoption, and will be estopped from disputing its liability thereon.

It is quite impossible to reconcile the authorities upon this subject, but in so far as trading corporations are concerned, the decisions, in this State at least, are consistent with each other and sustain the proposition. Some of them hold municipal corporations to be within the principle. (Gas Company v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453 ; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 265 ; Fraylor v. Sonora Mining Co., 17 Cal. 594 ; Rosborough v. The Shasta Fiver Canal Co., 22 Cal. 556 ; Allen v. Citizens' Steam Navigation Co., 22 Cal. 28 .)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.