William A. Sloane

This case concerned a claim by Dennis Sullivan, Annie Sullivan Glennon, and the children of Mary Ann O’Brien to inherit as the brother, sister, and nieces/nephews of decedent John Sullivan, whose estate had been distributed to the State of California after the superior court found the evidence of heirship insufficient. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was adequate to establish the claimed relationship. The court reasoned that the decedent’s repeated statements to neighbors about his Irish birth, family names (including mother Ellen and siblings Dennis, Annie, and Mary), navy service bought off by his father, and move to California closely matched the detailed family history provided in the claimants’ depositions, with no indication of collusion or untruthfulness to justify rejecting the proof.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether the San Rafael city board of education retained authority over a high school district after the annexation of outlying elementary school districts for high school purposes only, or if state law required the county superintendent to call an election for a separate high school board. The court held that the city board of education continued to govern the enlarged district and denied the petition for a writ of mandate. The reasoning was that the Political Code distinguishes city high school districts from others, and the city's charter along with related statutes form a uniform plan under which the city board retains control, with annexed areas participating in board elections; school administration is a state matter without constitutional barriers to the governance structure.

elections

This case involved an action to recover on a non-negotiable promissory note executed in exchange for shares of corporate stock, with defenses raised including fraud in the inducement and a counterclaim based on stockholder liability for corporate debts. The trial court excluded evidence of these defenses and the counterclaim, entering judgment for the plaintiff based in part on a prior judgment that had rejected similar fraud claims. The court held that the prior judgment did not bar the fraud defense here because the current note holder was not a party to that action, and further ruled that the counterclaim was timely and properly assertable against the joint and several liability on the note. Consequently, the judgment was reversed due to the erroneous exclusion of the counterclaim evidence.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned competing petitions by two adult children of the deceased to be appointed administrator of his estate under the Code of Civil Procedure. The probate court selected the son rather than the daughter, and the appellate court affirmed that choice. The court held that when two applicants are equally entitled to appointment and neither's competency is contested, the probate court has discretion under section 1367 to choose between them. It further reasoned that evidence showing the daughter had taken property from the decedent under circumstances likely to require the estate to sue her was properly considered as bearing on the suitability of her appointment, even though it did not disqualify her outright.

procedurepropertyfamily law

This case involved an attempt to enforce building restrictions on a residential lot in Los Angeles against its current owner, Martha Canady. The plaintiffs claimed rights based on an assignment from the original subdivider and a Torrens Land Act registration that referenced restrictions in an earlier deed. The court decided that the restrictions did not run with the land or create enforceable covenants benefiting neighboring properties, as the original deed lacked the necessary language for mutual agreements or a general plan. Therefore, the Torrens judgment did not expand the deed's effect, and the action to subject the property to the restrictions was dismissed.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a breach of a May 1919 written contract for the sale of 2,000 bags of rice at $6.95 per hundred pounds ex-dock San Francisco in bond; the defendant refused delivery, and the plaintiffs bought equivalent rice on the open market at higher prices, then sued to recover the $7,350 difference in cash outlay. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs for the full amount. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the proper measure of damages under the Civil Code required proof of the difference between the full original contract price (including the duty and dock charges assumed by the buyers) and the market value of equivalent rice under the same terms; because the substitute purchases were made f.o.b. without those charges, the plaintiffs had not established their actual loss and the matter had to be retried to determine whether and to what extent the judgment should be reduced.

business & regulatory

The case involved a poultry producers' cooperative corporation suing one of its stockholder-members for breaching a contract to sell all eggs produced through the cooperative. The trial court awarded damages for past breaches and granted specific performance plus an injunction for future compliance. On appeal, the court affirmed the damages but reversed the equitable relief, holding that specific performance and injunction were unavailable due to lack of mutuality of remedy, as the cooperative's obligations involved personal services and discretion that could not be specifically enforced against it.

business & regulatory

The case involved a husband suing his wife and stepson for an accounting and to recover money allegedly wrongfully withheld from him during a prior settlement of their marital community property, which consisted of bank accounts, notes, and mortgages accumulated over thirty years. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the parties had reached a voluntary settlement with full knowledge of the facts, represented by counsel, and without fraud or mistake. The core reasoning was that the agreed division of assets was final and conclusive, all withdrawals from joint accounts were considered or properly applied to community purposes, and no evidence supported claims of fraudulent appropriation by the defendants.

family lawproperty

This case involved a writ proceeding challenging a Railroad Commission contempt order fining and jailing William Van Hoosear for failing to restore water service to consumers from a spring and pipeline system deemed a public utility. The commission had previously ordered restoration of service at approved rates, an order affirmed by the court, but Van Hoosear argued he lacked ownership or control after conveying the property to his wife in 1910 and her later sale to a third party. The court held that undisputed evidence showed Van Hoosear had no ownership during the relevant period and thus could not comply with the order, rendering the contempt adjudication beyond the commission's jurisdiction and requiring annulment under writ of review standards. The decision focused on the jurisdictional limits of contempt enforcement where compliance is factually impossible due to lack of control over the utility.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over whether payments by Howard Investment Company to its president Frederick P. Howard constituted legitimate salary or improper advancements of dividends from corporate assets in which the original plaintiff, Mrs. Emma Shafter Howard, held a one-half interest under a community property settlement. Following her husband's death, Mrs. Howard secured half the corporate stock and assets via litigation and settlement, then sued to recover half of the salary paid to Frederick after the settlement, claiming the payments violated the trust terms and were really dividends. The trial court awarded judgment to the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the payments were made in good faith for actual services, consistent with the trust's waiver provision and the company's operating expenses during litigation, and that the prior release and settlement estopped further claims. The court found no evidence of fraud or mistake in treating the amounts as salary rather than dividends.

business & regulatorypropertyfamily law

The case concerns whether a superior court has jurisdiction under California's Torrens Act to adjudicate the validity of a trust deed alleged to have been obtained by fraud and to register fee title in the trustors during a land title registration proceeding. The Downeys petitioned to register title to property they claimed in fee, subject only to a trust deed they sought to rescind on fraud grounds. Petitioner Frances Investment Co. challenged the court's power to grant such relief, arguing the Downeys held only an equitable right to rescission rather than an existing estate or interest. The court held that the Torrens Act confers broad authority to determine all interests in the land, including equitable claims arising from fraud, as a preliminary step to certifying merchantable title; it relied on the statute's text authorizing registration by holders of legal or equitable interests, its provisions for resolving adverse claims and quieting title via decree in rem, and analogies to registration of titles obtained by prescription or fraudulent deeds.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned the interpretation of a lease provision allowing the lessor to terminate early and compensate the lessee for the lost term by a 'credit on the rent.' The majority treated the meaning of the ambiguous phrase as a question of law for the court and construed it as referring to the rent reserved for the remaining unexpired term. The dissent argued that surrounding circumstances and undisputed facts gave rise to conflicting inferences about whether 'rent' meant only accrued unpaid amounts or the future reserved rent, making the parties' intended meaning a factual question properly decided by the jury.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Tulare County seeking to recover two percent of the gross annual receipts from the San Joaquin Light and Power Company for its use of a franchise to operate electric lines on county highways under the Broughton Act. The court held that the franchise payment obligation was not repealed by a later constitutional amendment on corporate taxation, as it constitutes payment for a special privilege rather than a tax. However, the judgment was reversed because the two percent applies only to receipts arising from the use of the franchised public rights of way, not private easements, requiring an accounting to apportion the gross receipts accordingly among the various segments of the system.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved the defendant appealing his conviction for second-degree murder after shooting and killing his wife in Los Angeles in 1920. The primary defense was that the defendant was insane and unable to distinguish right from wrong or control his actions, but the jury rejected this and found him guilty. The court acknowledged some errors in the admission of evidence during the trial but concluded that these did not prejudice the outcome or lead to a miscarriage of justice, given the strong evidence of sanity and malice. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

criminal law

The case involved a Pennsylvania corporation that maintained a sales and distribution agency in Los Angeles, California, and whether the state could tax the corporation's accounts receivable from credit sales made through that agency. The trial court awarded a refund of taxes paid under protest, and the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after modification to remove interest. The court reasoned that under California law, intangible credits follow the domicile of the owner unless localized in an independent business away from the owner's control, and here the Los Angeles agency did not exercise sufficient independent control over the credits for them to acquire a California situs.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a bank's lawsuit to enforce a promissory note and recover for conversion of crops under an assigned mortgage, which the defendant had provided as security. The defendant claimed he had loaned the note and securities temporarily to help the bank conceal his brother's large unsecured overdraft from a bank examiner, in violation of banking laws, based on an oral agreement that the bank would return them once other collateral was substituted. A jury found for the defendant and ordered return of the items, but the court reversed on appeal. It held that the transaction was an illegal contract against public policy because both parties knowingly participated in an effort to deceive the examiner, leaving them in pari delicto, and therefore neither could obtain judicial relief to enforce or unwind the arrangement.

business & regulatorycriminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted of grand larceny and attempted grand larceny who appealed, challenging the admission at trial of personal papers and other items seized from his home under an invalid search warrant. The court affirmed both convictions. It held that federal constitutional search-and-seizure rules did not govern state proceedings and concluded that admitting the evidence did not violate the parallel provisions of the California Constitution; any additional errors, such as improper prosecutorial comments, were deemed non-prejudicial under the state harmless-error provision because the remaining evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute over ownership of real property in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff sought to quiet title based on a lost deed allegedly executed by her deceased sister in 1915. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the deed had been properly executed and delivered, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's testimony, despite the absence of the deed and notary records, was credible and sufficient to establish delivery of the deed with intent to pass title, as the grantor's statements indicated she had conveyed the property while requesting the deed not be recorded until after her death.

property

This case involves Pacific Gas & Electric Company's challenge to a Railroad Commission decision setting the compensation the city of Auburn must pay to acquire the company's water utility system, including reservoir and distribution infrastructure. The commission, after hearings with appraisals from multiple engineers, fixed just compensation at $52,000 as of the May 10, 1918 application date, addressing issues such as reproduction costs, depreciation, hydrant connections, organization expenses, and going-concern value. The court affirmed the commission's order, holding that the agency regularly pursued its authority under the Public Utilities Act by considering all relevant evidence and elements of value, even if it did not adopt every line-item estimate, and thereby satisfied constitutional requirements for just compensation.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a contract dispute in which the defendant agreed to sell second-hand household furniture from the Federal Hotel to the plaintiff for $1,700, with a clause requiring the defendant to pay $500 if he failed to deliver the goods on the specified date. After the defendant defaulted on delivery despite the plaintiff's tender, the trial court awarded the plaintiff the $500 as liquidated damages. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, ruling that the stipulation was an unenforceable penalty under Civil Code sections 1670 and 1671 because the furniture was an ordinary commodity with a readily ascertainable market value, making it practicable to calculate actual damages under sections 3308 and 3354 rather than impracticable or extremely difficult as alleged. The court found that the plaintiff's status as an auctioneer intending to resell the items at public sale did not alter the standard measure of damages or justify the stipulated amount.

business & regulatoryproperty