Court Opinion

ID: 9546000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:23:26.997842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:53.174808
License: Public Domain

WARD, J.
I concur. On the question of the relationship of officers to stockholders in the purchase of stock, I adhere to the “special facts” doctrine, which may be applied appropriately in this case. Upon this theory, I concur in the order affirming the judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 28, 1945, and the following opinion was thereupon rendered:
THE COURT.—Petitioner contends that the court has omitted material facts from its opinion, has misstated other facts, and has failed to consider substantial legal issues raised by appellants. These contentions all lack merit. A reexamination of the opinion in the light of the record discloses that every material fact has been set forth in the opinion, and that every material fact set forth in the opinion is supported by substantial evidence or by reasonable inferences therefrom. The opinion disposes of every relevant legal issue raised on the appeal. The briefs of appellants and this petition cite the frequently relied upon but seldom followed case of Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409 [71 P.2d 220], and ask us to disregard conflicts in the evidence. This we caimot and should not do.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Appellants' petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 26, 1945.