Marson v. Rand
| Decision Date | 09 November 1951 |
| Citation | 107 Cal.App.2d 466,237 P.2d 18 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,173 MARSON v. RAND et al. Civ. 18689. |
McLaughlin & Casey, Los Angeles, for appellant.
C. L. Gardner and Graham L. Sterling, Jr., Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in a rescission action whereby he sought to recover the purchase price which he had paid for outstanding shares of stock in Cienega Village, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the corporation), which plaintiff purchased from defendant Richard Rand pursuant to a contract of sale dated February 10, 1951.
The action was predicated upon the theory that the stock which defendant Richard Rand sold and transferred to plaintiff was void for the reason that it had been issued in violation of the terms of the permit granted by the corporation commissioner, in that the consideration for the issuance of the stock was not received by the corporation until a date subsequent to the issuance of such stock.
The case was tried before the court sitting without a jury who found that the shares of stock which plaintiff purchased had been issued after the consideration therefor had been paid.
Questions: First: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court's findings, (a) that the stock which plaintiff purchased had been issued after the consideration therefor had been received by the corporation, and (b) that there were no fraudulent representations made in the application to the corporation commissioner for a permit to issue stock, even though it was conceded that the application stated that 7.12 acres of land of the value of $37,000 would be conveyed to the corporation when in truth and fact only 5.5 acres of land of the value of $37,000 was conveyed to the corporation?
Yes. We have examined the record and are of the opinion there was substantial evidence to sustain the inferences that the trier of fact reasonably drew therefrom to sustain each and every material finding of fact upon which the judgment in favor of defendants was necessarily predicated.
(a) The records and testimony received in evidence disclosed that the corporation had received prior to the issuance of shares of stock the consideration which the permit of the corporation commissioner required to be given prior to the issuance of the stock.
(b) The testimony disclosed that the statement, in the petition for a permit to issue stock, that 7.12 acres of land would be conveyed to the corporation was made through inadvertence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Green
...whether it contains evidence that will sustain her contentions. (Fuschi v. VirDen, 107 Cal.App.2d 280, 236 P.2d 829; Marson v. Rand, 107 Cal.App.2d 466, 237 P.2d 18; Cooper v. Cooper, 168 Cal.App.2d 326, 335 P.2d 983.) Notwithstanding appellant's disregard of the rules, we have examined the......
-
People v. Genser
...are without merit. It would serve no purpose to set forth the facts in detail to buttress these conclusions. (See Marson v. Rand, 107 Cal.App.2d 466, 468, 237 P.2d 18.) Genser asserts error because the court refused to instruct the jury that the managers of the automobile agencies who, afte......
-
Tesseyman v. Fisher
...sustain a contention made by either party to the appeal. Fuschi v. Vir Den, 107 Cal.App.2d 280, 283-284, 236 P.2d 829; Marson v. Rand, 107 Cal.App.2d 466, 468, 237 P.2d 18. Where an appellant claims that some particular issue of fact is not sustained by the evidence, he is required to set f......
-
Murphy v. Ablow
...to the findings, together with every inference to be reasonably drawn therefrom. As Mr. Justice McComb stated in Marson v. Rand, 107 Cal.App.2d 466, 468, 237 P.2d 18, 20: "It is not the province of a reviewing court to present, by way of opinion, a detailed argument on the sufficiency of th......