Court Opinion

ID: 9443411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:19:27.431519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:28.728539
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the judgment here must be affirmed although I have a somewhat different view as to the reasons for the affirmance.
The facts disclose that Courtney, the appellant, received the shares of stock in the Mining Company at the same time that he received the copy of his mortgage from which he learned that certain property had been omitted from the mortgage. It is therefore clear, as the majority opinion suggests, that Courtney retained the shares of stock in the Mining Company after he learned of the omissions from the mortgage.
Now, upon the theory upon which Courtney prosecuted his appeal, this retention of the mining stock would bar his recovery, for that theory was that he was seeking the restitution of money which he had lost by reason of the fraud of the defendants.
At the time of the argument before us it was suggested that the appellant had mistaken his remedy, — that his remedy should have been an action by himself as principal against the Bank as his agent to recover under the rule which permits a principal, •to recover damages from his unfaithful agent.
If the action were viewed in that light, the retention of the stock by Courtney, while it might bar his chance for disaffirmance against the Mining Company, would not operate to release his agent from liability. Courtney would have a right to retain the stock in order to protect his own interest. He would have a right to realize what he could from the- defective mortgage and hold the unfaithful agent on account of any loss established. See Restatement of Agency, § 416(a), and Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. Smith, 152 Cal. 507, 93 P. 85; cf. Tiffany, Agency (1924), § 64, pp. 170-171.
I am of the opinion that there was a complete failure to prove damages under the only theory which was available to Courtney. He claims that the property which was included in his mortgage was worthless and that the property which was omitted would have been adequate to secure him. No competent proof of this worthlessness or of the claimed values was offered. I think therefore that the judgment must be affirmed.