22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T471,This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant after the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended and supplemental complaint without leave to amend. The complaint as amended alleged the execution of a trust deed as security for the payment of a promissory note and that the creditor and trustee named in the deed of trust were one and the same person; and prayed that a sale held pursuant to the terms of the trust deed be declared void. Plaintiff relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions: Plaintiff’s first contention is untenable, in view of the holding in Kinard v. Kaelin, 22 Cal. App. 383 , where, at page 392 [ 134 Pac. 370 ], Mr. Presiding Justice Lennon, in disposing of a similar contention, says: See, also, Bank of Italy etc. Assn. v. Bentley, 217 Cal. 644, 655 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 940 ]; 25 California Jurisprudence, page 6, section 2. The second proposition presented by plaintiff is answered adversely to its contention by Kinard v. Kaelin, supra, where, at page 391, the court says: The judgment is affirmed. Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.24:T49b,

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant after the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended and supplemental complaint without leave to amend.

The complaint as amended alleged the execution of a trust deed as security for the payment of a promissory note and that the creditor and trustee named in the deed of trust were one and the same person; and prayed that a sale held pursuant to the terms of the trust deed be declared void.

Plaintiff relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:

Plaintiff’s first contention is untenable, in view of the holding in Kinard v. Kaelin, 22 Cal. App. 383 , where, at page 392 [ 134 Pac. 370 ], Mr. Presiding Justice Lennon, in disposing of a similar contention, says:

See, also, Bank of Italy etc. Assn. v. Bentley, 217 Cal. 644, 655 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 940 ]; 25 California Jurisprudence, page 6, section 2.

The second proposition presented by plaintiff is answered adversely to its contention by Kinard v. Kaelin, supra, where, at page 391, the court says:

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.