Court Opinion

ID: 9864592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:14:13.593153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:07.294877
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In their petition for a rehearing in cause No. 7255 respondents criticise the paragraph of the opinion *365reading: “And also that, because of the allegations relating to the pledge of this stock to the Marine Bank before this suit was commenced the bank is a necessary party to this litigation, and that, if these allegations are found to be true, then the corporation may no longer assert the invalidity of the stock under the settled rule of the cases cited.”
Respondents now offer in this case to prove that the pledge of the stock of the Marine Bank was fully satisfied and that the loan was repaid. Whether this was done before the trial of the cause is not stated. However, the language referred to was not necessary to the opinion and is, therefore, stricken out.
Respondents also complain of the portion of the judgment limiting the issues on the retrial as to appellant Thompson, which withdraws from the retrial the issue of fraud as to this appellant. This was done because the parties have had their day in court on that issue. The respondents failed to prove anything but a suspicion of fraud, while the only competent evidence on the subject, including the presumptions and inferences which must be drawn, compelled us to find in favor of this appellant on that issue.
In a separate petition the respondents ask leave to present additional evidence under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proffered evidence relates to the matters of restoration and ratification. It does not include the issues which must be retried as to parties other than Thompson. As we pointed out in the original opinion, a judgment for these parties would require a judgment for Thompson, but a judgment adverse to them would not necessarily conclude the case as to this appellant.
The petition for a rehearing and the petition for leave to offer additional testimony are both denied.
A petition by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 5, 1930.