Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Parker v. Merchants & Insurers Reporting Co. 44 Cal. App. 214

← Cases

Parker v. Merchants & Insurers Reporting Co.

44 Cal. App. 214 Court Second Appellate District, Division One. Decision date 1919-11-07 Docket Civ. No. 2635 English

Delivered by CONREY, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 214
[Civ. No. 2635.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
November 7, 1919.]
P. A. PARKER, Appellant, v. MERCHANTS & INSURERS REPORTING COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent.

Headnote

[1] Account Stated—Order op Corporation That Amount be Paid —Insufficient Evidence.—The minutes of the board of directors of a corporation containing an order that commissions due a certain person to a given amount be paid do not constitute sufficient evidence of an account stated between the corporation and said person, there being no evidence of any demand being made at that time by said person for the specified sum or any sum whatever, or any evidence that she ever assented to said order or to the amount therein specified, or even that she knew that such order had been made.
1. What constitutes an account stated, note, 27 I». R. A. 811.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Chas. Wellborn, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Henry W. Nisbet for Appellant.
Slosson & Mitchell for Respondent.

Upon the trial of this action the plaintiff rested her case solely upon the second cause of action stated in the complaint, which was upon an account stated. Upon the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which motion was granted, and accordingly judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff introduced in evidence minutes of the board of directors of defendant corporation, showing that upon motion it was ordered “that commissions due P. A. Parker to the amount of $3,990.44 be paid.” There is no evidence of any demand being made at that time by the plaintiff for the specified sum of money or any sum whatever. Neither is there any evidence that she ever assented to said order

p. 215
or to the amount therein specified, or even that she knew that such order had been made. It necessarily follows that no agreement was made between the parties whereby the amount of plaintiff’s demand was limited or ascertained and determined. (Gille v. Anderson, 34 Cal. App. 237 , [ 167 Pac. 193 ]; Gardner v. Watson, 170 Cal. 571 , [ 150 Pac. 994 ].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

Cases cited