Bennett

Bennett v. Brown

Good Law
1929 Cal. LEXIS 613·206 Cal. 424·274 P. 532
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 1929Docket No. L.A. 9536.California1,396 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

The judgment in this cause is reversed, with directions to the court below to deny all relief on all issues between the plaintiff and the defendants, but without prejudice to the rights of the cross-defendant Sarah E. Bennett, who alone is entitled to have her costs of appeal herein as against the respondents.

This decision is made and this direction to the court below given because the record shows without substantial conflict that both plaintiff Walton L. Bennett and respondent Robert A. Brown have entered a court of equity with unclean hands asking for aid. Arthur J. Brown is the son of Robert A. Brown, who held a power of attorney from him, and all the transactions herein were made by the father so acting for the son; all acts upon the part of the son were imputable to the father and reference will hereinafter be made in the main only to the father. Robert A. Brown had several money judgments of record against him, which fact doubtless explains the existence of these transactions in the name of the son. The truth of the observation as to unclean hands will abundantly appear from the following:

Walton L. Bennett was at all times herein and for some years prior thereto living…

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.