Twomey

Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.

Good Law
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 2361·262 Cal. App. 2d 690·69 Cal. Rptr. 222
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 5, 1968Civ. 24020California16,634 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Defendant corporation, which succeeded to the investment banking and stock brokerage business of a partnership of similar name, and the individual defendant, the manager of a local office of the firm, have appealed from a judgment in favor of a customer which is predicated upon the alleged misfeasance of the defendants and the predecessor partnership.

In 13 points they have voiced objections which may be conveniently grouped as follows: (1) Eesort to federal law and to regulations promulgated pursuant to the authority of federal law converted the ease to one of exclusive federal jurisdiction, or, alternatively, rendered the judgment erroneous because of an alleged conflict with federal law; (2) the findings exceed the scope of the issues raised by the pleadings and pretrial order; (3) the findings are not sustained by the evidence; (4) the findings are conflicting and incomplete; (5) the action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, and the plaintiff’s ratification and laches; and (6) the court erred in the computation of damages.

A review of the record and pertinent legal principles reveals that there is no merit in defendants ’ contentions.

General findings

The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.