Campbell v. Rayburn
| Decision Date | 29 November 1954 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | James J. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carl F. RAYBURN, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 5008. |
James J. Campbell, in pro. per.
Ray T. Sullivan, Jr., County Counsel, Leo A. Deegan, Deputy County Counsel, James H. Angell, Asst. County Counsel, Riverside, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a demurrer. A demurrer to the third amended complaint was sustained on February 26, 1954, with leave to amend within 15 days. No amendment having been filed, a judgment of dismissal was entered on March 17, 1954, from which the plaintiff has appealed.
The third amended complaint alleged that at all times material the defendant was sheriff of Riverside County; that on December 15, 1951, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Attorney General 'describing gambling activities in Riverside County, and particularly in the Palm Springs area'; that the attorney general advised the plaintiff that said letter had been forwarded to the defendant 'for attention and appropriate action'; that the defendant, in violation of section 335 of the Penal Code, distributed photostatic copies of plaintiff's letter amongst the gamblers of the Palm Springs area, warning said gamblers that plaintiff was an informer; and that the plaintiff learned about this on January 10, 1953. It was further alleged that the defendant induced or otherwise caused two named gamblers, who owned business property in Palm Springs, not to rent the plaintiff office space for the purpose of carrying on his business as a real estate broker, etc.; that plaintiff learned about this on January 10, 1953 when one of the named gamblers told the plaintiff that he would not 'give the plaintiff standing room'; and that this same gambler has influenced his friends not to rent office space to the plaintiff, thus forcing him to conduct his business from his home.
There is an attempt to state a cause of action against the sheriff for violation of section 335 of the Penal Code, and also an attempt to state a cause of action for alleged wrongful interference with prospective contractual relations. With respect to the first of these causes of action no facts are alleged showing a violation of section 335. Aside from the conclusion that this letter was one 'describing gambling activities', and the conclusion that a warning was given to some gamblers, no facts are stated as to the contents of the letter or as to the nature and effect of the warning. Moreover, no facts are set forth tending to show that the alleged violation of section 335 of the Penal Code resulted in any special injury to the plaintiff, as distinguished from that suffered by the public in general.
As to the other cause of action, involving alleged wrongful interference with prospective contractual relations, no facts are alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Town Development Corp. v. Urban Renewal Agency of City of Monterey
...right. (Cf. California Auto. Court Assn. v. Cohn (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 145, 148--150, 219 P.2d 511; with Campbell v. Rayburn (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 232, 234--235, 276 P.2d 671; and see 2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, §§ 154--158, pp. 1329--1334.) In fact, there is nothing to show that h......
-
Blank v. Kirwan
...plaintiff had any reasonable expectation of economic advantage which would otherwise have accrued to him...." (Campbell v. Rayburn (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 232, 234, 276 P.2d 671.) If, however, plaintiff is attempting to allege that the requisite economic relationship is with the class of pote......
-
Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc.
...in the motion picture industry but for defendants' alleged agreement to exclude suspected Communists]; Campbell v. Rayburn (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 232, 234-235, 276 P.2d 671 [failure to show plaintiff probably would have been able to rent suitable office space but for defendant's contact with......
-
Wilson v. Loew's Inc.
...such contract or relationship would otherwise have been entered into. Cases collected 9 A.L.R.2d 228, 256-257. In Campbell v. Rayburn, 129 Cal.App.2d 232, 276 P.2d 671, the complaint alleged: the plaintiff wrote a letter to the attorney general describing gambling activities in Riverside Co......