Wiseman

Plaintiff Kass and defendants Sklar have appealed separately from the judgment of the Superior Court, but have presented their appeals under a combined transcript and on combined briefs. There is, therefore, no occasion for separate discussions of the appeals.

The defendants were the owners- of an improved lot and a vacant lot in different sections of Los Angeles. They desired to have the building moved from the one lot to the other and there repaired, altered and improved. They had had various dealings with plaintiff Sidney J. Kass, then engaged primarily in the real estate business, and had confidence in his integrity and ability. They asked said Kass to undertake the supervision of the proposed work. Intervening conversations, if any, are not shown by the evidence, but on October 5, 1922, said Kass presented to defendants a form of agreement between defendants and plaintiff E. C. Wiseman. Defendants declined to execute such contract with Wiseman. Thereupon Wiseman’s name was removed and the name Sidney J. Kass inserted and the agreement was then signed by both defendants and by Sidney J. Kass. Immediately thereafter, and without the knowledge of defendants, said Kass assigned…

I dissent. If it be true, as seems to be conceded, that Wiseman had no cause of action against the defendants, it must follow that the controversy between the plaintiff and the defendants would necessarily be determined completely by the judgment that would have been rendered. Kass had no interest, either legal or equitable, in the controversy between those parties. The defendants had a right to have that controversy ended by a decision on its merits, without the intervention of a new plaintiff who had no interest in the pending claim of the plaintiff against the defendants.

If Wiseman had any right of action against Kass, it was a right of action at law for money due on a contract of employment. He had no lien of any kind on the indebtedness of the defendants to Kass. Prom every point of view, the decision of the trial court is clearly against law.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 31, 1930, and a petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 5, 1930.