Cooper

Cooper v. Tanner

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 282·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217·295 P. 525
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 1931Docket No. 182.California1,224 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Marks, J.

Respondent was the owner of an orange grove near the city of Corona in the county of Riverside. She was also the owner of 75% shares of the capital stock of the Temescal Water Company. This stock was found in the possession of appellant and upon his refusal to deliver it to her, this action was brought to compel the cancellation of certificate number 3725 issued for it, and the issuance of a duplicate by the Water Company. Judgment was entered for respondent, and appellant has prosecuted this appeal:

Appellant presents two grounds upon which he bases his claim for a reversal of the judgment; first, that the water stock in question was not appurtenant to the land owned by respondent, and, second, that “where one of two inno cent persons must suffer by the act of a third, he, by whose negligence it happened, must be the sufferer”. (Sec. 3543, Civ. Code.)

Under the conclusions which we have reached it makes no difference whether or not the water stock was appurtenant to the land. Therefore, we will assume, without deciding, that the contention of appellant is correct and that the stock was not appurtenant to the land.

The evidence discloses that respondent purchased this stock in…

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.