Bull

Smith v. Bull

Good Law
1958 Cal. LEXIS 156·50 Cal. 2d 294·325 P.2d 463
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 16, 1958L. A. 24510California8,803 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Carter, J.

Defendant Prank Bull appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Bertille B. Smith, administratrix with will annexed of the estate of her husband, Vincent Richard Smith, deceased. Mel Roach was also a defendant but judgment was in his favor.

The complaint originally pleaded 10 causes of action but on plaintiff’s motion in open court, all causes of action, save the first were dismissed. The complaint alleged the existence of a partnership between Prank Bull and decedent, Vincent Richard Smith, and, in brief, an appropriation and conversion of the partnership assets, including goodwill, by defendant *297 Bull. The court’s findings, conclusions of law and judgment were based upon the first cause of action. The judgment adjudicated that plaintiff was entitled to one-half of the proceeds of four accounts, to a certain sum of money on deposit with the Citizens National Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles, and “that plaintiff shall recover from defendant Frank Bull the sum of Twenty-eight Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-five and 83/100 Dollars with interest thereon from the date of entry of this final judgment until paid at the rate of 7% per annum” which sum represented one-half…

Concurrence in Part

McCOMB, J.

I would modify the judgment of the superior court by striking therefrom the following:

As so modified, I would affirm the judgment for the reasons *307 expressed by Mr. Presiding Justice White in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal (Cal.App.), 318 P.2d 46 .

Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied June 11, 1958.

Opinion

Defendant Frank Bull appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Bertille B. Smith, administratrix with will annexed of the estate of her husband, Vincent Richard Smith, deceased. Mel Roach was also a defendant but judgment was in his favor.

The complaint originally pleaded 10 causes of action but on plaintiff's motion in open court, all causes of action, save the first were dismissed. The complaint alleged the existence of a partnership between Frank Bull and decedent, Vincent Richard Smith, and, in brief, an appropriation and conversion of the partnership assets, including goodwill, by defendant Bull. The court's findings, conclusions of law and judgment were based upon the first cause of action. The judgment adjudicated that plaintiff was entitled to one-half of the proceeds of four accounts, to a certain sum of money on deposit with the Citizens National Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles, and "that plaintiff shall recover from defendant Frank Bull the sum of Twenty-eight Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-five and 83/100 Dollars with interest thereon from the date of entry of this final judgment until paid at the rate of 7% per annum" which sum represented…

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.