Frank S. Brittain

In Bacon v. Meserve, the plaintiff appealed a trial court judgment awarding him only $236.91 on a $2,500 promissory note, contending that the court improperly allowed the defendant a $2,000 credit for attorney's fees. The case arose from a series of transactions in which the plaintiff's agent retained the defendant as counsel to negotiate a settlement involving the plaintiff's claims against a third party, with the fee amount ultimately incorporated into the option price paid to satisfy those claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidentiary facts showed the primary obligation for the fees rested with the plaintiff, that any attempt to shift the burden had reverted to him, and that the evidence supported the trial court's finding of an agreement to pay the $2,000 fee. The court noted that the appeal presented only this mixed question of law and fact, with no challenge to the pleadings or findings.

business & regulatory

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Richard Higgins, who was arrested for operating a second-hand automobile dealership without paying the required quarterly license fee under section 18 of San Francisco's Ordinance No. 5132. The court upheld the ordinance and remanded Higgins to custody, ruling that the $50 fee was valid. The core reasoning was that the city charter authorizes license taxes and police permit fees for businesses like second-hand dealers, which are subject to regulation due to risks of handling stolen property; the classification distinguishing such dealers from new-car sellers who occasionally resell trade-ins was deemed reasonable and not violative of constitutional limits on taxation or police power.

business & regulatorytaxescriminal law

The case concerned an appeal from a trial court order in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding that annulled an execution sale of mortgaged property held by a receiver and enjoined the purchaser from disposing of it. The court reversed the portions of the order declaring the sale void and restraining the appellant from hypothecating or selling the property, but affirmed the injunction against interfering with the receiver's possession. The core reasoning was that the trial court lacked power in this ancillary proceeding to adjudicate title or the validity of the execution sale, which must be determined in a proper action, while general rules require protection of a receiver's possession from interference by coordinate courts.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over funds in a deceased depositor's account at the Commercial National Bank of Los Angeles. Miss Dunn sued the bank, asserting that the decedent had made an equitable assignment of the entire balance to her by delivering a check in payment for services rendered during his lifetime. The administrator of the estate sued the bank separately on another check, but after the bank's interpleader motion was denied the actions were consolidated by consent and tried together, with the administrator's complaint treated as a cross-complaint. The trial court found that a valid assignment had occurred and entered judgment awarding the fund to Dunn, directing the bank to pay the money into court, and taxing costs against the estate. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the assignment finding and that the consolidation procedure caused no prejudice or reversible error.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate an earlier order that refused to certify a trial transcript for use in appealing a 1917 judgment awarding $970.85 in rent to the plaintiff corporation from the defendant trustee. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate the required diligence in pursuing relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in the delayed preparation and filing of the transcript. The reasoning emphasized that no new substantive matters were presented on the second motion, the appellant did not seek extensions or compel the reporter's performance, and the prolonged delays in bringing the appeal forward lacked justification.

procedure

The case was a wrongful death action under Code of Civil Procedure section 377 brought by the mother of 23-year-old Mrs. lone Smith, as administratrix of her estate, against Golden Auto Tour Corp. for fatal injuries sustained when its employee negligently operated an automobile stage in a railroad crossing collision. The defendant admitted negligence but contested whether Mrs. Smith was a passenger for reward, challenged certain evidentiary rulings on her services to her invalid mother and family circumstances, and argued the $5,000 verdict was excessive or unsupported. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that she was a paying passenger, that any evidentiary errors were harmless or proper to show the pecuniary value of her care and services to the family, and that the damages award did not shock the conscience given the facts of dependency and loss.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a superior court judgment denying a writ of prohibition to stop a justice court from vacating a default judgment in a claim-and-delivery action over a pony valued at $100. The justice court had entered a default judgment against defendant Manuel Faria (served after a misnomer as Faira) based on an assigned claim, and Faria paid the judgment amount plus costs under execution before seeking relief on grounds of mistake and lack of proper notice. The court held that the payment was not voluntary because it occurred under compulsion of execution, and that the mailed notice of judgment was invalid due to being addressed to the wrong name and returned undelivered, so the ten-day period under Code of Civil Procedure section 859 never began to run and the motion to vacate was timely. It therefore affirmed the denial of prohibition, allowing the justice court to exercise its discretion to set aside the default and permit a defense. The supreme court denied further review but clarified that the decision rested on the absence of actual notice rather than the names not being idem sonans.

procedure

The case In Re Dees concerned the validity of an amendment to the San Francisco License Ordinance imposing a $300 monthly fee on those engaging in the business of reselling theater tickets away from the theater office, under which the petitioner was arrested while selling tickets at hotel newsstands. The court held the ordinance section invalid and ordered the petitioner discharged. It reasoned that the provision could not stand as an exercise of police power because it interfered with the conduct of a lawful business without any reasonable relation to public health, morals, or safety. Considered instead as a revenue measure, the court found it unreasonable and oppressive, functioning more as a prohibitive condition on business than a legitimate tax, and exceeding the limits of the city charter which barred such license taxes on sellers of goods at fixed places of business.

business & regulatorytaxescriminal law

The plaintiff bank sued to set aside three deeds conveying land from Roberts to his wife as fraudulent, seeking to enforce its sheriff's deed from an execution sale on a judgment against Roberts. The trial court ruled for the defendants, finding the initial deed validly transferred title, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the first deed was supported by valuable consideration in the form of a pre-existing debt owed by Roberts to his wife, with a resulting trust for her benefit; evidence showed the deed was properly executed, the consideration was adequate, and there was no fraudulent intent or knowledge by the wife; subsequent deeds were irrelevant if the first was valid, and the bank's recording of its deed conferred no superior rights. The court applied rules on fraudulent conveyances under Civil Code section 3442, noting that the burden shifted appropriately and findings on factual issues like intent and knowledge were supported by the evidence.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ownership of refrigerating machinery installed on defendant Delno's property. Frick Company sold the machinery to contractors Horstmann & Plomert under a contract retaining title until payment, who then installed it for Delno; Frick's assignee sued Delno for the machinery or its value after the contractors defaulted. The court affirmed judgment for Delno, reasoning that Frick Company had elected to treat the transaction as a completed sale by attempting to collect the debt and was estopped by its delay in asserting title, which prejudiced Delno.

property

The case involved a dispute over ownership of an invention called a “light dissolve” used in motion picture production between Famous Players-Lasky Corp. and its former employee, an expert electrician named Ewing. The company sued to compel assignment of the patent title after Ewing developed the device while working on lighting improvements. The court affirmed the judgment directing Ewing to execute the assignment and enjoining him from transferring or encumbering the invention. The core reasoning was that Ewing had been hired specifically to improve lighting with his inventive abilities, the general concept originated with the company's manager, and the employer therefore held the rights to the resulting invention even without an express agreement.

labor & employmentproperty

The case involved a defendant convicted of felony under section 21 of the Motor Vehicle Act for failing to stop and render assistance, including transport to a physician if requested, after his car collided with another vehicle. The trial court denied a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The court reasoned that the statute must receive a reasonable construction to avoid absurd results or injustice, that it does not criminalize refusal of bad-faith demands for assistance unrelated to actual collision injuries, and that the new evidence undermined the complainant's credibility by showing his injuries came from a separate fight with his son and that monetary demands preceded any criminal complaint. The court further held that the state failed to prove essential elements of criminality and that the jury should be instructed on proper limits of the penal statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Bar Association of San Francisco seeking to discipline attorney Russell W. Cantrell for alleged acts of moral turpitude and dishonesty under the Code of Civil Procedure. The accusations included misrepresenting California law to a beneficiary to secure representation, failing to promptly pay her legacy and using the funds for personal purposes, and entering into a settlement stipulation against his client's instructions while withholding collected funds. The court found these acts involved moral turpitude and suspended Cantrell from practice for one year, reasoning that trustworthiness is essential for attorneys and that misappropriating client funds warrants suspension even if later repaid.

criminal law

The case involved property owners suing the City of Los Angeles for damages based on alleged depreciation in the value of their non-abutting lots due to the lawful construction of the North Broadway tunnel and related street grading under municipal assessment ordinances. The trial court granted nonsuits against the plaintiffs, and the appellate court affirmed those judgments. The core reasoning was that the state constitution's requirement of compensation for property 'taken or damaged' for public use does not extend to indirect or consequential effects, such as reduced traffic or general market shifts in the area, when the improvement causes no physical invasion, change in access, or special injury to the plaintiffs' properties beyond that shared with the public. The court distinguished such claims from compensable direct damage under precedents like Eachus v. Los Angeles etc. Ry., noting that buyers of property assume the risk of ordinary changes in neighborhood traffic patterns.

propertycivil rights

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against a taxi service and a railway company as joint tort-feasors, alleging that their combined negligence caused the death of the plaintiff's wife in a collision at a railroad crossing. The trial court had sustained a general demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend, but the appellate court reversed that ruling. The court held that negligence may be pleaded in general terms and that the complaint adequately alleged facts regarding the taxi's operation, the raised rails at the crossing, the train's excessive speed, and the failure to maintain a lookout, which were sufficient to state a cause of action and raise triable issues of fact.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a retired San Francisco police patrolman who sought a writ of mandamus to compel the police pension board to base his ongoing pension payments on the increased salary for his former rank after a 1919 charter amendment raised patrolman pay from $102 to $140 per month. The petitioner had been retired in 1903 due to duty-related disability and received a pension equal to half his rank's salary at retirement. The court held that the pension must be recalculated using the current salary attached to the rank at the time each payment is due, rather than the salary in effect at retirement. This interpretation followed from the charter language providing for an annual pension equal to half the salary attached to the rank, the vested contractual nature of the pension right, the absence of any limiting language like that applied to fire department pensions in a simultaneous amendment, and the rule of liberal construction for pension statutes.

labor & employment

The case involved a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Evelyn Travers, who was detained by the San Francisco health officer in a hospital ward after being suspected of having infectious venereal diseases. Travers alleged that her arrest for vagrancy was improper, that she was examined without consent or by a licensed physician, and that her detention lacked proper authority from the state board of health. After a commissioner reviewed extensive evidence, the court found that Travers was infected with two communicable diseases, that the health officer acted under valid state authority to quarantine persons with such conditions, and that the arrest and examination procedures were lawful with no duress involved. The court concluded that public health laws authorizing isolation of infected individuals were enforceable and that the evidence supported the detention order. The writ was discharged, and Travers was ordered returned to the health officer's custody.

healthcarecriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff buyer sued the defendant seller for failing to deliver 500 lambs as agreed in May 1918, after paying a $250 deposit, and for retaining the deposit while reselling the lambs elsewhere. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $1,250 in damages on findings that the seller had not properly performed or offered to perform the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the seller made no valid offer of performance under Civil Code sections 1485-1505 by failing to deliver the lambs to Helm Station or properly communicate with the buyer, that any parol evidence regarding a change in delivery timing was either admissible or constituted harmless error, and that sufficient evidence supported the findings without a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the contract's essential terms were delivery and payment, with time and place not being of the essence.

business & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for arson based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a fire at a property owned by Mrs. Larson, where he had been living. The appellant appealed the judgment and the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence did not sufficiently exclude the possibility that someone else committed the crime. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence met the legal standards for proving guilt, as the facts were consistent with the appellant's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion after the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over three contracts in which the defendant agreed to grow and deliver specified acreages of beans to the plaintiff at set prices per pound, with the plaintiff suing for breach and the defendant counterclaiming for the value of beans delivered. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim following a jury verdict, but the appellate court reversed. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to establish performance or readiness to perform under the contracts, as he could not account for yields from specific tracts (which had different contract prices), made incomplete and untimely deliveries, and refused to provide information about quantities when requested; the evidence also showed the defendant had withheld beans and later sold them at higher market prices. The contracts were treated as entire, and the refusal to pay did not constitute an anticipatory breach by the plaintiff.

business & regulatory