Case Name: PACIFIC STATES SAVINGS & LOAN COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. SANTA BARBARA BILTMORE CORPORATION (a Corporation) et al., Defendants and Respondents; CHARLES J. LICK et al., Interveners and Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1936-04-01
Citations: 13 Cal. App. 2d 752
Docket Number: Civ. No. 10888
Parties: PACIFIC STATES SAVINGS & LOAN COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. SANTA BARBARA BILTMORE CORPORATION (a Corporation) et al., Defendants and Respondents; CHARLES J. LICK et al., Interveners and Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 13
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 10888.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
April 1, 1936.]
PACIFIC STATES SAVINGS & LOAN COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. SANTA BARBARA BILTMORE CORPORATION (a Corporation) et al., Defendants and Respondents; CHARLES J. LICK et al., Interveners and Respondents.
O ’Melveny, Tuller & Myers, Pierce Works, Heaney, Price, Postel & Parma, and Kenneth W. Watters, Jr., for Appellant.
Cosgrove & O.’Neil for Defendants and Respondents.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, H. F. Prince and Frederic H. Sturdy for Interveners and Respondents.

Opinion:
GOULD, J., pro tem.
This contest between plaintiff as a minority holder of about 27 per cent and interveners as majority holders of about 51 per cent of defaulted bonds of an issue of $1,250,000 upon the hotel properties of the Santa Barbara Biltmore Corporation presents facts strictly analogous to, and a trust indenture almost identical with that involved in Pacific States etc. Co. v. Hollywood Knickerbocker, Inc., 11 Cal. App. (2d) 56 [52 Pac. (2d) 1014]. There, as here, the trial court held under the terms of the trust indenture considered as a whole the majority bondholders were given power to control and direct the policy of the trustee for the protection of all, and that viewpoint was approved by the appellate tribunal.
Upon the reasoning and authority of the hereinabove cited case the judgment of the lower court in the within action is affirmed.
Crail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.