Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Acency Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Hidalgo
    50 views2 pages
    This document summarizes four legal cases: 1) International Films (China) vs. Lyric Film Exchange - Lyric Film Exchange was not liable when a film it leased from International Films was destroyed in a fire at Lyric's storage facility. 2) Villegas vs. Lingan - An agent's sale of property was valid and binding even if the owner did not authorize the sale. 3) Blondeau vs. Nano - A mortgage could be foreclosed even though the mortgagor's signature was forged, because the mortgagor had given his title papers to the agent. 4) Cason vs. Rickards - An employer was required to return a

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    acency case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes four legal cases: 1) International Films (China) vs. Lyric Film Exchange - Lyric Film Exchange was not liable when a film it leased from International Films was destroyed in a fire at Lyric's storage facility. 2) Villegas vs. Lingan - An agent's sale of property was valid and binding even if the owner did not authorize the sale. 3) Blondeau vs. Nano - A mortgage could be foreclosed even though the mortgagor's signature was forged, because the mortgagor had given his title papers to the agent. 4) Cason vs. Rickards - An employer was required to return a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Acency Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Carlos Hidalgo
    This document summarizes four legal cases: 1) International Films (China) vs. Lyric Film Exchange - Lyric Film Exchange was not liable when a film it leased from International Films was destroyed in a fire at Lyric's storage facility. 2) Villegas vs. Lingan - An agent's sale of property was valid and binding even if the owner did not authorize the sale. 3) Blondeau vs. Nano - A mortgage could be foreclosed even though the mortgagor's signature was forged, because the mortgagor had given his title papers to the agent. 4) Cason vs. Rickards - An employer was required to return a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    International Films (China) vs.

    Lyric Film Exchange


    FACTS
    Gabelman was the agent of International Films through power of attorney executed on April 5, 1933.
    Thereafter, the International Films through its agent, leased the film entitled "Monte Carlo Madness" to
    the Lyric Film Exchange for two days on the conditions that the defendant would be liable for the loss of
    the film. The bodega of the Lyric Film Exchange, Inc., burned with the film

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Lyric Film Exchange is liable

    RULING
    No, it does not constitute either negligence or fraud.

    Villegas vs. Lingan


    FACTS
    Catral executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Lingan with a special power of Atty. Villegas asserts that the
    power of attorney executed for Catral created a agency relationship only between his wife, Marilou
    Marilou as principal, and Catral, as agent, for the administration of the properties of the Marilou.He
    claim that he never authorized Catral to administer his properties and that Catral cannot execute the
    Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Lingan there was no special authority to sell the property.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Petitioner may redeem the property

    RULING
    Yes, agency is binding only between the contradicting parties, then only the parties, as well as the third
    person who transacts with the parties themselves, may question the validity of the agency or the
    violation of the terms and conditions found therein.

    Blondeau vs. Nano


    FACTS
    Blondeau wanted to foreclose a mortgage it made with Nano, the property was on Calle Georgia,
    Manila. It was mortgaged to secure a 12,000 peso loan. There was a power of attorney of Vallejo in
    favor of Nano who signed the document.Vallefo claims mortgage is void since his signature was forged.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the mortgage may be foreclosed

    RULING
    Yes. The torrens titlewas duly registered and a person need not look beyond the title of the property.
    But there is a narrower ground on which the defenses of the defendant-appellee must be overruled.
    Agustin Nano had possession of Jose Vallejo's title papers. Without those title papers handed over to
    Nano with the acquiescence of Vallejo, a fraud could not have been perpetrated.

    Cason vs. Rickards

    FACTS
    From the 1st day of November, 1895, until the 31st day of October, 1896, the defendant Rickards was
    the agent of defendant, Smith, Bell & Co. He received from the Cason, as a deposit, 2,000 pesos. When
    he left the employ of the defendant company the 2,000 pesos were, by his orders, delivered to another
    agent of Smith, Bell & Co. Smith, Bell and CO received and used the amount.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Rickards was authorized by Smith, Bell & Co. to receive deposits.

    RULING
    Yes. When money is received as a deposit by an agent, and that money is by the agent
    turned over to his principal, with notice that it is the money of the depositor, the principal
    is bound to deliver it to the depositor, even if his agent was not authorized to receive such
    deposits.

    You might also like