owed the duty to the plaintiff to do her no injury in the employment of their own legal rights.

We have examined the charge of the court, and the requests to charge asked by defendants and refused, and find no error in the rulings of the court. The court properly directed the jury that the plaintiff had the right to recover the amount, if any, expended by her for medicine and nurse-hire, and did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that "nothing should be allowed plaintiff by way of damages for expenses incurred for nursehire, medicines, and doctor's bills, unless actually paid" by her.

The object of damages is to give compensation for loss for the injury sustained. The medical man was employed as a direct consequence of the injury. The obligation to pay the surgeon for his services still rests on the plaintiff, and compensation for the detriment she has suffered could not be complete unless she was placed in a position to discharge herself from this obligation. Her failure to pay may have resulted from the hurt occasioned by defendants. The law allows such recovery by plaintiff for the reason that the acts of defendants superinduced the incurring of the obligation, and the duty to discharge it is imposed by law on defendants. We find no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed.

SHARPSTEIN, J., concurred.

MCFARLAND, J., concurring.-I concur. The only doubt which I had in the case was as to the point whether plaintiff could recover for her doctor's bill without having first paid it, upon which point counsel throw no light. The law is, I think, that a plaintiff, in such a case, cannot prove that he has incurred a physician's bill under an allegation that he had paid it. (Ward v. Hawes, 5 Minn. 440; Pritchett v. Boevy, 1 Cromp. & M. 775;

Jones v. Lewis, 9 Dowl. 143; Sedgwick on Measures of Damages, 7th ed., 197, note a.) But I do not find the rule to be established that he cannot recover for such a bill though only incurred, where that fact is averred in the complaint. And I think that the better reason is with the position taken in the opinion of Mr. Justice Thornton. The complaint in this case has a sufficient averment that the expense was incurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

[No. 11913. Department Two.-April 29, 1889.]

JOHN H. READ, RESPONDENT, v. W. M. BUFFUM, APPELLANT. SOL. LEWIS, INTERVENOR AND APPEL

LANT.

ASSIGNMENT BY CORPORATION-PROOF OF AUTHORITY OF OFFICER.-An instrument purporting to be an assignment of an account by a corporation, executed in the name of the corporation by its secretary, cannot be taken as the valid act of the corporation without proof that the secretary had power to make it. ID. RATIFICATION BY DIRECTORS AFTER SUIT BY ASSIGNEE.-A ratification of such an attempted assignment, made by the board of directors of the corporation after an action has been commenced on the account by the assignee, is too late to be availing to the assignee. ID.-DENIAL OF ASSIGNMENT ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF.—In an action by an assignee of an account, an answer alleging that the defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations of a particular paragraph of the complaint, which contains the averment of the assignment, and for that reason denying all and singular the allegations contained in such paragraph, is sufficient to raise an issue as to the fact of the assignment.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The plaintiff, in paragraph 3 of his amended complaint, alleged the assignment of the account in question, its non-payment, and his ownership thereof. These al

legations the defendant denied as follows:

"Defendant

alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of said amended complaint, and for that reason defendant denies each and every and all of said allegations in said paragraph contained.” The further facts

are stated in the opinion of the court.

George Lezinsky, Franklin P. Bull, and Frank, Eisner & Platshek, for Appellants.

It was error to admit the assignment in evidence without proof that W. M. Buffum & Co. and W. M. Buffum was the same individual. (Kirk v. Blurton, 8 Mees. & W. 283; McGregor v. Fuller Implement Co., 72 Iowa, 143.) Proof of the execution of the assignment, and of the authority in the person signing it, are necessary to make it the valid act of the corporation. (Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11; 91 Am. Dec. 607; Southern Cal. Col. Ass'n v. Bustamente, 52 Cal. 196.)

Pillsbury & Blanding, for Respondent.

It will be presumed that the secretary of the corporation had power to make the assignment. (McKiernan v. Lenzen, 56 Cal. 64.)

SHARPSTEIN, J.-The plaintiff sues as the assignee of the California Powder Works, a corporation, for money alleged to be due for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by said corporation to the defendant. The defendant in his answer denies the allegation of his indebtedness to said corporation, and denies the assignment of said alleged indebtedness to the plaintiff.

And as a further and separate answer, and as a defense to said action, alleges:

"That at all the times stated in said amended complaint the defendant was, and is now, a resident of the territory of Arizona, and has not at any of said times

been within the state of California; that defendant purchased, between the seventh day of April, 1882, and the twentieth day of May, 1883, at the territory of Arizona, certain goods, wares, and merchandise which are alleged in the said amended complaint to have been purchased by said defendant from the said California Powder Works at the city and county of San Francisco."

He further alleges that the action is barred by certain provisions of the laws of the territory of Arizona, and by the provisions of sections 361 and 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure of this state.

One Sol. Lewis filed a complaint in intervention, to which the plaintiff filed an answer.

Upon the issues raised by the pleadings, the parties proceeded to trial, and John F. Lohse was called and sworn as a witness for the plaintiff. He testified that he was secretary and treasurer of the California Powder Works, and had been secretary since 1865, the commencement of the company.

Counsel for plaintiff then offered in evidence the following document:

"BOARD OF TRADE OF SAN FRANCISCO. "In the Matter of W. M. Buffum & Co., Jerome, A. T. Dated San Francisco, May 29, 1885.

"In consideration of one dollar, and other good and valuable consideration to us severally paid by the assignee next hereinafter mentioned, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, we hereby sell, assign, and transfer to John H. Read our claims and demands against the first above named, in the amounts hereinafter set forth, and we severally authorize said assignee to enforce the payment of the same by legal remedies or otherwise, for his use and benefit.

"Witness our hands, with the several amounts of said claims and demands placed opposite thereto :-—

"The California Powder Works, per John F. Lohse, secretary, $2,379.53."

This was shown to the witness, who testified that the signature was his.

The defendant objected to the said evidence, on the ground that the said document purports to convey an account against W. M. Buffum & Co., whereas this action is an action against W. M. Buffum, and therefore does not prove the assignment of any amount against the defendant in this suit. The objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

Plaintiff's counsel then asked the witness if there was any action of the board of directors approving that assignment. Witness answered, "There was." He was requested to read it, and read as follows:

"Mr. Payton introduced the following resolution, namely: 'Resolved, That the assignment of this company on May 29, 1885, by the secretary, under the direction of the president, to John H. Read, of the claims and demands of the company against William M. Buffum, doing business under the name of William M. Buffum & Co., be and the same is hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed.' Said resolution, being seconded by Mr. Luning, was unanimously carried."

Witness testified that he read from the records of the corporation, and that the claim referred to was the one

in suit.

Plaintiff then offered in evidence the said document and resolution, to which the defendant objected, on the ground that said document purports to convey an account against W. M. Buffum & Co., whereas this is an action against W. M. Buffum, and therefore does not prove the assignment of any account against the defendant in this suit. The objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. Witness then testified that the goods were sold in Arizona, or in San Francisco, and shipped from the latter place; that they were sold and shipped to defendant by order. Witness produced one of the orders, which he said was a sample of the others; that