Court Opinion

ID: 9608834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:18:17.888433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:56.551474
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I dissent.
I would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Patrosso in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Santa Fe Transportation Go. v. State Board of Equalisation (Cal. App.), 328 P.2d 990.
Shenk, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 4, 1959. Shenk, J., Schauer, J., and Me Comb, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted. *543Gen. Laws, Act 652) was part of a joint deposit agreement entered into by husband and wife while it was in effect, since its repeal any restriction it might theretofore have imposed on the depositors’ power to contract could survive only by virtue of its continued existence as part of the contract of the parties, who could not, however, contract away their power to contract in the future, since the law, not private agreement, determines the essential elements of a valid contract.