Nowell

Nowell v. Oswald

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 55·96 Cal. App. 536·274 P. 423
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1929Docket Nos. 5342, 6031.California3,377 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Crail, J.

The sole question presented on appeal is the correctness of the trial court’s decision that appellant Oswald was a joint adventurer with others in the production of a theatrical exhibition and therefore liable to employees for claims for labor. We are satisfied that the ruling of the trial court was correct. (Westcott v. Gilman, 170 Cal. 562 [Ann. Cas. 1916E, 437, 150 Pac. 777 ]; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302 [ 37 Pac. 1048 , 38 Pac. 109 ]; Leake v. City of Venice, 50 Cal. App. 462 [ 190 Pac. 440 ].)

There is an all-important difference in construing relationships of this kind as between the parties themselves upon the one hand and as between the parties themselves and those who have dealt with them’ upon the other hand. In the instant case the rights of third parties are involved; and as stated in Westcott v. Gilman, supra: “When, however, the rights of third parties are involved, the basis of the inquiry shifts materially, and the fundamental questions are, what had those third parties the right to believe from the language of the contract and from the conduct of the parties to it as affecting them, and not as affecting each other. Each case, therefore, is adjudicated upon…

Dissenting Opinion

Houser, J.

It appears that no evidence was introduced on the trial of the case, but it was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. It is to such statement only, therefore, that this court must look as a guide to a proper declaration of the law in the premises. In order that no misapprehension may occur as to the facts which were before the trial court and upon which the law of the case depends, they are inserted herein in full, as follows:

From Exhibit “A,” which is the agreement in which D. Castle and Mrs. Small are the only parties, it appears that they “have prepared for public presentation a legitimate production,” of which Castle is to be the “director”; that he is “to dictate at all times policies and performances of said production; . . . have exclusive charge of all matters relating to the advertising and exploitation of production”; receive all moneys accruing therefrom, which will be not only banked, but as well disbursed, in his name, only, as trustee; and that of the net profits (if any) Oswald shall receive fifty per cent “for moneys advanced,” Castle fifteen per cent, Mrs. Small ten per cent, Ricker fifteen per cent and Soldiers’ Monument Fund ten per…

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.