Oswald

Application for rehearing.

Complaint is made in a petition for rehearing filed on behalf of appellant Granger that, in view of the fact that Oswald had a right of setoff against Knight as to a portion of the Knight bonds going to Granger and the Pacific Metal Products Company, the right of the latter (the Metal Products Company) is extinguished to the amount of the setoff, which is more in amount than the value of the bonds going to the company, and Granger is entitled by virtue of his prior assignment to the bonds given to the company. There is no force iñ this claim in view of what is shown in that portion of the district court. of appeal opinion which we have approved. By reason of the fact that Granger did not give notice of his assignment to the county and that the company did give notice of its assignment, the company’s assignment became superior to that of Granger and its claim must first be satisfied. Hence, if there is any offset to be considered, it would have to come out of Granger’s share in the bonds remaining after the company’s claim is satisfied. So no error has been made in favor of the company as against Granger. The opinion of the district court of appeal…

In so far as the appeal of appellant Oswald is concerned we are entirely satisfied with the opinion filed by the district court of appeal of the second appellate district, division one, and adopt the same as the opinion of this court.

[1] As far as the appeal of appellant Granger, involving the rights of the Pacific Metal Products Company, is concerned, we are satisfied that the judgment of the superioi court was correct; in other words, that as Granger had not notified the county of his assignment, and as the Pacific Metal Products Company had given such notice, the claim of the latter became superior to that of Granger. Under the circumstances Oswald was not the debtor upon whom notice of assignment was required to be served. In this respect the case is within the doctrine declared in Adamson v. Paonessa, 180 Cal. 157 , [ 179 Pac. 880 ].

The judgment of the superior court and the order denying the motion of plaintiff Oswald to vacate the judgment are in all respects affirmed.

All the Justices concurred, except Melvin, J., who was absent.

The opinion of the district court of appeal referred to in the foregoing opinion follows:

In the year 1912 the board of supervisors of San…