Tracy

We agree with the conclusion of the learned District Court of Appeal announced in this case and as to the questions raised by the appeal as to causes of action two, three, four and five, we adopt a portion of the opinion of Mr. Justice Plummer, as follows:

Respecting the first cause of action, the court submitted to the jury two defenses: The illegality of the subscription for shares in part payment of which the note in question was given and the claim that the subscription was induced by the false representations of plaintiff’s agent. In this connection we agree also with the learned District Court of Appeal in holding that the evidence shows without substantial conflict that the 25 per cent payment required by the permit issued by the corporation department was in fact paid in cash by the defendant on the day the subscription was made; hence the submission of this issue to the jury was unwarranted. (Boone v. Oakland Transit Co., 139 Cal. 490 [ 73 Pac. 243 ]; Idemoto v. Scheidecker, 193 Cal. 653 [ 226 Pac. 922 ].) Error of this character is often prejudicial. (Eppinger v. Kendrick, 114 Cal. 620 [ 46 Pac. 613 ]; Bosqui v. Sutro R. R. Co., 131 Cal. 390 [ 63 Pac. 682 ]; Wallis v.…