Court Opinion

ID: 9572047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:37:52.415338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:25.909233
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. As the statute originally stood there could be no doubt of the correctness of the conclusion that the salaries of those rendering personal services to corporations as officers thereof were not then preferred claims. But when the statute was amended in 1931 to include the salaries of servants and other persons for “personal” services rendered the assignor “corporation”, some significance should be given to those amendments. The majority opinion holds them meaningless. When they are accorded their usual meaning the salaries and wages of those who render personal services for the assignor corporation, whether as officers, servants or employees, would be entitled to the preference to the extent of $200. (See Levitt v. Faber, 20 Cal. App. (2d) (Supp.) 758 [64 Pac. (2d) 498].) The code commissioner’s notes related to the 1907 amendments and appear to have been concerned mainly with arrangement and not so much with substance. Those notes were not concerned at all with the substantive changes in 1931. In my opinion the order should be affirmed.
Edmonds, J., concurred.