Kullman

The questions involved in this appeal have been determined adversely to the contention of the appellant in the cases of Cashman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373 ; Wetmore v. Barrett, 103 Cal. 246 ; and Sheehy v. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325 ; and upon the authority of those cases the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed. There is nothing in Kutz v. Fleisher, 67 Cal. 93 , inconsistent with the above cases. That action involved a series of transactions extending over several years, most of which were had prior to January 1, 1880, and the provisions of the present constitution were, of course, inapplicable to them. In the account upon which the action was brought there were two purchases of stocks by the plaintiff for the defendant after that date, and the trial court was requested to hold, as a matter of law, that the mere fact that the plaintiff had purchased and paid for these stocks at the request of the defendant, and, instead of immediately delivering them, had retained them until he should be repaid the advances, was in violation of the statute of frauds, and in contravention of the provisions of article IV, section 26, of the constitution. The trial court refused so to hold or rule,…