Hendley

—This is a controversy between appellant corporation and defendant Valley Investment Company. The last-named corporation is an association composed of respondent Guy C. Foulks and one Elliott.

This same ease .was previously before the court and the full report thereof appears in 103 Cal. App., at page 335 et seq. [ 284 Pac. 736 ]. A reference thereto will suffice as a statement of facts. It will be observed from a reading of the report that the former judgment was reversed and the cause came back for further proceedings. On the second trial, the only evidence introduced was to show that Elliott was without knowledge of any fact involved in the transaction.

As is evident from a reading of the reported case, the action involved the right of the respective parties in and to certain automobiles.

The opinion of the District Court' of Appeal left but one question open, namely, that of estoppel and this was left open only as a question of fact. However, the Supreme Court, in denying a petition for a hearing [ 285 Pac. 1048 ], used this language: “We withhold our approval of that portion of said opinion which purports to hold that a mortgagee is protected by the provisions of section…