Cannabis Indica

How this document has been cited

—the defendant has no ground for complaint "where" [t] he trial court... has reduced the judgment "and the prevailing" plaintiff has acquiesced in the judgment by not appealing
- in DIAMOND ENTERPRISES, LTD. v. YOUNESSI, 2015 and 2 similar citations
Held, any error in allowing the amendment or in making the finding was favorable to the appealing $213 APPEAL defendants, for she was thereby precluded from obtaining any recovery against them
- in California procedure and 2 similar citations
Since the evidence with respect to loss of profits would have supported a larger award than was actually given, defendants cannot, on review, complain of the award or a supposed lack of evidence to sustain it
- in Tomlinson v. Wander Seed & Bulb Co., 1960 and one similar citation
In an action to recover rental for the use of an excavating equipment based upon a written contract made by the president of the corporation defendant, the contract is held to be that of the corporation, although it does not purport on its face to be signed by the president in his official capacity.
- in New California Digest and one similar citation
Inasmuch as any irregularity or error in the procedure employed was favorable to him, Guilbert is precluded from asserting it as a ground for reversal: "There is a generally accepted principle that the appellant must show prejudicial error affecting his interests in order to prevail on appeal... and it follows that the appellate court need not and will not review errors which …
In any event, since Diamond requests we affirm the judgment and the modification of the judgment is favorable to defendants, they cannot assert it as a ground for reversal
A corporation which suffers appearances to exist, and its officers and agents so to act, as to give one dealing with it reason to believe that he is dealing with the company, is liable on a contract of its officers entered into under these circumstances. ¹ 1 California.
Similarly, when an officer's apparent or ostensible authority to execute an agreement on behalf of the corporation has been established, the officer's omission of his or her official designation from the agreement does not negate the corporation's obligation under the agreement

Cited by

Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2015
3 P. 3d 286 - Cal: Supreme Court 2000
93 Cal. App. 3d 233 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 1979
BE Witkin - (No Title), 1970
177 Cal. App. 2d 462 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1960
WM Fletcher… - (No Title), 1931
WM McKinney… - (No Title), 1930
RV Whiting - 1924

Leave a Reply