Associated Boat Industries of Northern Cal. v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 01 May 1951 |
| Citation | 104 Cal.App.2d 21,230 P.2d 379 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ASSOCIATED BOAT INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA v. MARSHALL. Civ. 14689. |
Sefton & Quattrin, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant, Associated Boat Industries of Northern California, is a non-profit corporation whose membership comprises builders and distributors of, and dealers in, new boats, ships and yachts. Appellant filed a complaint for declaratory relief in which it sought a court determination of the invalidity of certain regulations adopted by respondent as Yacht and Ship Broker Commissioner.
Appellant purported to bring its action under Government Code, section 11440, reading in part: 'Any interested person may obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of any regulation by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure * * *.'
A demurrer was sustained on the ground that appellant is not an 'interested person' within the meaning of this section. From the judgment which followed this appeal is taken.
The only question presented is whether an incorporated trade association whose members are subject to the regulations attacked, but which itself is not subject to those regulations, is an 'interested person' within the meaning of this section. We have concluded that it is not.
The legislature, in using the words 'Any interested person' had before it long established legislative precedents which make it clear that an 'interested person' in the sense in which those words are used in the statute is a person having a direct, and not a merely consequential, interest in the litigation.
With the adoption of 'An Act to Regulate the Settlements of the Estates of Deceased Persons' in 1851, Stats. 1851, p. 448 'any person interested' came into statutory use in California to describe those persons who may contest the probate of a will, sec. 18, p. 450 and sec. 30, p. 451, Stats. 1851. Those words have ever since continued in the succeeding statutes governing this subject. Prob.Code, secs. 370, 380. Those sections have always been construed to require a direct and primary interest in the testator's estate. 'It is settled that an interested person is one who has 'such an interest as may be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will, or benefited by setting it aside * * *''. In re Estate of Plaut, 27 Cal.2d 424, 425-426, 164 P.2d 765, 766, 162 A.L.R. 837; 26 Cal.Jur., Wills, sec. 344, pp. 1083-1085.
Similarly Code Civ.Proc. sec. 387 permits intervention by 'any person, who has an interest in the * * * litigation'. It is settled that to come within this section '(t)he interest * * * must be direct, and not consequential, and it must be an interest which is proper to be determined in the action * * *.' Isaacs v. Jones, 121 Cal. 257, 261, 53 P. 793, 794, 1101. 'The interest mentioned in the Code which entitles a person to intervene * * * must be * * * of such a direct and immediate character that the intervener will either gain or lose by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
...Westchester Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.App.3d 523, 91 Cal.Rptr. 720 and from Associated Boat Industries v. Marshall, 104 Cal.App.2d 21, 230 P.2d 379, each heavily relied upon by In reaching our conclusions, we first note that environmental concerns underlie this a......
-
Central Valley Chap. 7 Step Foundation v. Younger
...subject to a statute does not have standing to obtain a declaratory judgment." Respondents rely upon Associated Boat Industries v. Marshall (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 21, 22-23, 230 P.2d 379, to support their contention. However, a consistent line of cases has held that Associated Boats cannot b......
-
Baltimore Bldg. and Const. Trades Council AFL-CIO v. Barnes, AFL-CIO
...491, 492 (5th Cir. 1953); Nello L. Teer Company v. United States, 172 Ct.Cl. 255, 348 F.2d 533 (1965); Associated Boat Industries v. Marshall, 104 Cal.App.2d 21, 230 P.2d 379 (1951); Baden Borough v. Chamberlain, 191 Pa.Super. 367, 156 A.2d 594 (1959); and Blk. River Elec. Coop., Inc. v. S.......
-
Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
...2 The first of these chronologically, and the one upon which appellants chiefly rely, is Associated Boat Industries v. Marshall (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 21, 230 P.2d 379 (hereafter Marshall ). There, we held that a trade association which was composed of members subject to the challenged regul......