Court Opinion

ID: 9791033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:03:53.678424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:33.510067
License: Public Domain

LANGDON, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment reached, and am fully in accord with the sound and reasonable rule laid down in the ¡Restatement of the Law of Agency, and established by the foregoing opinion as the law in this jurisdiction. I think it is desirable, however, to mention *629briefly, some of the cases which are followed, overruled or disapproved by it.
The so-called "doctrine of Gridley v. Tilson.” was expressed in a case wherein the point might well have been considered dictum, for a separate and sufficient ground for the holding appears therein. (See 16 Cal. L. Rev. 234.) Assuming, however, as subsequent cases have done, that Gridley v. Tilson constitutes a direct holding on the point, the prior decision of this court in Mooney v. Cyriaks, 185 Cal. 70 [195 Pac. 922], was directly contrary thereto. The case of Munn v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc., 36 Cal. App. 312 [171 Pac. 1082], which was cited with approval in Gridley v. Tilson, was disapproved in Mooney v. Cyriaks, supra. The Mooney case was followed in Whiting v. Squeglia, 70 Cal. App. 108 [232 Pac. 986], in which case this court denied a hearing. Nevertheless, a great many eases were decided in the District Courts of Appeal in the last few years, which follow the principle supposed to have been adopted in Gridley v. Tilson. Among these are Warner v. Taft Land & Dev. Co., 113 Cal. App. 71 [297 Pac. 969]; Campbell v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 121 Cal. App. 374 [9 Pac. (2d) 264] ; W. J. Latchford Co. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 1251 Cal. App. 112 [13 Pac. (2d) 871] ; Clancy v. BeckerArbuckle-Wright Corp., 137 Cal. App. 43 [29 Pac. (2d) 868] ; Curby v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 138 Cal. App. 241 [32 Pac. (2d) 151]. In the recent case of Simmons v. Ratterree Land Co., 217 Cal. 201 [17 Pac. (2d) 727], though we held that under the peculiar circumstances the rule of Gridley v. Tilson was inapplicable, we approved it as a correct statement of the law. Also, in Humphrey v. Harry H. Culver & Co., 220 Cal. 765 [32 Pac. (2d) 630], we merely distinguished and did not disapprove Gridley v. Tilson.
It is now clear that this rule is unsound in principle, and that it is contrary to the better authorities, as evidenced by the Restatement on Agency. (See, also, 16 Cal. L. Rev. 234, supra.) In refusing to follow it further, we are now overruling the many decisions set forth above, and are returning to the position formerly taken by us in Mooney v. Cyriaks, supra.
Rehearing denied.