Caminetti

I dissent.

I agree with the holding of the majority that Judge Vickers was not disqualified. The motion to vacate was properly denied on that ground, but should have been granted for the reasons set forth in full in the dissent in Caminetti v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., this day filed, supra, p. 344 [ 139 P.2d 908 ].

Traynor, J., concurred.

Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied July 22, 1943. Traynor, J., and Peters, J. pro tem., voted for a rehearing.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to vacate certain orders affirmed in a companion ease decided herewith (Caminetti v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. of California, ante, p. 344 [ 139 P.2d 908 ]), all of which orders were made by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in a statutory proceeding involving the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California.

As more fully appears in the companion case, ante, p. 344 [ 139 P.2d 908 ], in accordance with a plan of rehabilitation of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California, a new company known as the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company was organized and its entire stock was held by the then Insurance Commissioner. Later, however, the *388 stock of the new company was transferred by a voting trust agreement to five persons named therein as voting trustees. When the present commissioner succeeded to the office he sought an order invalidating the voting trust agreement. The appellants, Neblett and others, also sought similar relief by motion. On May 8, 1940, the superior court, Judge Vickers presiding, denied both motions. Appellants Neblett et al., thereupon moved to vacate the above orders on the ground that…