Hurley

Hurley v. Southern California Edison Co., Limited

Good Law
183 F.2d 125
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 9, 195012278_1California15,313 words

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing

*137 On Petition for Rehearing

By its petition for rehearing the appellee company- makes the contention, among others, that in holding that Hurley had the right to disaffirm the dividend orders executed by him, we overlooked the rule stated in Section 170(2)c of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts as follows:

These dividend orders, the Company says, were in effect assignments of the debt, and hence, it is argued, the Company should be protected by its payments to Mrs. Price, and no subsequent effort to disaffirm the orders should result in charging the company.

We are not impressed with the argument that the orders were assignments, but we think it unnecessary to determine that question, because of the facts found in the trial court’s finding No. XII, as follows: “The dividends and stock rights listed above in Paragraph XI in the total sum of $20,458.50 were paid and delivered by defendant to Elizabeth J. Price under dividend order No. 13157 during the period from February 19, 1929 until the death of Elizabeth J. Price on December 27, 1943.”

Dividend order No. 13157 was the order signed by Mrs. Price and . Burton alone, after they had received the allegedly forged…

Lead Opinion

Pope, J.

This was an action brought by the appellant, Lester W. Hurley, against the appellee, Southern California Edison Company, Limited, here called the Company, to require it" to account for dividends on its ■stock, and certain stock rights, which Hurley asserts the Company paid out and delivered to the wrong person.

On November 20, 1928, Hurley was a minor of the age of 20 years. He resided, and still resides, in the State of Missouri. His mother had died previous to that date. Elizabeth J. Brice, wife of William Price, and then a resident of California, was his grandmother. Hurley’s mother, and his uncle, George E. Burton, were children of Elizabeth J. Price by a former marriage.

On the date mentioned William Price, theretofore the owner of the shares of stock here described, caused the appellee Southern California Edison Company to issue in the name of Elizabeth J. Price, George E. Burton, and the appellant, Lester Hurley, as joint tenants with full right of survivorship, certificates evidencing ownership of shares of the common and of the preferred stock of the Company. The certificates so issued were delivered to the grandmother, Elizabeth J. Price. Hurley knew nothing of these…

Opinion

183 F.2d 125 HURLEY, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., Limited. No. 12278. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1950. Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1950. Thurman L. McCormick, Kansas City, Mo., and Harold Easton, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Chas. E. R. Fulcher, Carol G. Wynn, Fulcher & Wynn, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before STEPHENS, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 This was an action brought by the appellant, Lester W. Hurley, against the appellee, Southern California Edison Company, Limited, here called the Company, to require it to account for dividends on its stock, and certain stock rights, which Hurley asserts the Company paid out and delivered to the wrong person. 2 On November 20, 1928, Hurley was a minor of the age of 20 years. He resided, and still resides, in the State of Missouri. His mother had died previous to that date. Elizabeth J. Price, wife of William Price, and then a resident of California, was his grandmother. Hurley's mother, and his uncle, George E. Burton, were children of Elizabeth J. Price by a former marriage. 3 On the date mentioned William Price, theretofore the owner of the shares of stock here…

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.