Adamson

Plaintiff obtained judgment against the appealing defendants on their liability as stockholders of the Victor Adamson Productions, Inc. By way of defense appellants lay the ax to two roots of plaintiff’s case. How successfully they cut must be determined from an examination of the judgment-roll, for there is no objection to the sufficiency of the evidence appearing in the bill of exceptions, and we must assume, therefore, that there is ample evidence to support each finding. (Millar v. Millar, [1917] 175 Cal. 797 [Ann. Cas. 1918E, 184, L. R. A. 1918B, 415, 167 Pac. 394 ]; Jones v. Wickstrom, [1928] 92 Cal. App. 292 [ 268 Pac. 449 ].)

First of all, it is insisted that an action for money had and received will not lie in a case where, as here, the money expended was embezzled. To have the problem properly before us we must see the picture portrayed by the findings of fact.

One A. B. Watson was, from October 1, 1927, on through the story, the president of the plaintiff corporation. He was also president of the Victor Adamson Productions, Inc., part of that time, and all of the time an officer in charge of the books and records. Watson had still a third interest, the Foothill Cities…

I concur in the result, basing my decision upon the grounds first stated in the opinion.

Rehearing denied.