Category: 1940

Barnett v. La Mesa Post No. 282 , 15 Cal.2d 191 [L. A. No. 17277. In Bank. February 29, 1940.] MARION R. BARNETT et al., Appellants, v. LA MESA POST No. 282, AMERICAN LEGION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Respondents. COUNSEL Fenton Garfield, August J. O’Connor and G. J. Hider for Appellants. Gray, Cary, Ames […]

Sutphin v. Speik , 15 Cal.2d 195 [L. A. No. 17142. In Bank. February 29, 1940.] I. O. SUTPHIN, Respondent, v. FREDERICK A. SPEIK, Appellant. COUNSEL John W. Preston, Wood, Crump & Rogers, Crump & Rogers and John Perry Wood for Appellant. Leland J. Allen for Respondent. OPINION GIBSON, J. This is an action to […]

Speik v. Sutphin , 15 Cal.2d 764 [L. A. No. 16530. In Bank. February 29, 1940.] FREDERICK A. SPEIK, Appellant, v. I. O. SUTPHIN, Respondent. COUNSEL John W. Preston, Crump & Rogers and Wood, Crump & Rogers for Appellant. Leland J. Allen for Respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum GIBSON, J. [1] This is an […]

In re Connor , 15 Cal.2d 161 [Crim. No. 4257. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] In the Matter of the Petition of FRANK S. CONNOR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. COUNSEL Frank S. Connor, in pro. per., for Petitioner. Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and Everett W. Mattoon, Deputy Attorney- General, for Respondent. OPINION THE COURT. […]

Machado v. Title Guarantee and T. Co. , 15 Cal.2d 180 [L. A. No. 16188. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] RICARDO A. MACHADO et al., Appellants, v. TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST CO. (a Corporation) et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Willedd Andrews, Charles D. Munro and Victor E. Wilson for Appellants. Arch H. Vernon, Earl E. Johnson, […]

Kamp v. Johnson , 15 Cal.2d 187 [Sac. No. 5268. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] HARRY M. KAMP, Appellant, v. CHARLES G. JOHNSON, as State Treasurer, etc., et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Herman Weinberger and Arthur L. Shannon for Appellant. Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and H. H. Linney and James J. Arditto, Deputies Attorney-General, for Respondents. OPINION […]

Porter v. Van Denburgh , 15 Cal.2d 173 [L. A. No. 16169. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] JESSIE BERYL PORTER, Respondent, v. HARRY G. VAN DENBURGH, as Administrator, etc., Appellant. COUNSEL Oscar S. Elvrum and Girard F. Baker for Appellant. Kelby, Lawson & Garroway for Respondent. OPINION SHENK, J. The plaintiff filed an action to […]

See v. Joughin , 15 Cal.2d 178 [L. A. No. 17105. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] ZILLA GRACE SEE, Appellant, v. LIZZIE JOUGHIN, Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents. COUNSEL D. G. Kling and D. A. Knapp for Appellant. Bonpane & Prince and Eckman & Lindstrom for Respondents. OPINION THE COURT. This is a motion by […]

Estate of Baxter , 15 Cal.2d 166 [L. A. No. 17040. In Bank. February 14, 1940.] In the Matter of the Estate of ANNA BAXTER, Deceased. F. L. RICHARDSON, Administrator, etc., et al., Appellants, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent. COUNSEL Wade Garfield and F. L. Richardson for Appellants. Gray, Cary, Ames & Driscoll and Burton […]

In re Pacific Coast Bldg.-Loan Assn. , 15 Cal.2d 134 [L. A. No. 16540. In Bank. February 8, 1940.] In the Matter of PACIFIC COAST BUILDING-LOAN ASSOCIATION, OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (a Building and Loan Association). LOUIS C. DRAPEAU, Building and Loan Commissioner, etc., Petitioner and Respondent; H. P. DRAKE et al., Claimants and Respondents, […]

In re Pacific Coast Bldg.-Loan Assn. , 15 Cal.2d 155 [L. A. No. 16682. In Bank. February 8, 1940.] In the Matter of PACIFIC COAST BUILDING-LOAN ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (a Building and Loan Association). JUSTUS F. CRAEMER, Building and Loan Commissioner, etc., Respondent, v. H. P. DRAKE et al., Appellants. [L. A. No. […]

Hamilton v. Carpenter , 15 Cal.2d 130 [L. A. No. 17053. In Bank. February 5, 1940.] ARCHIBALD J. HAMILTON, Respondent, v. MARGARET B. CARPENTER et al., Appellants. COUNSEL Robert R. Ashton and Cameron B. Aikens for Appellants. Meserve, Mumper & Hughes and Roy L. Herndon for Respondent. OPINION SHENK, J. The defendants appeal from a […]

Prager v. Isreal , 15 Cal.2d 89 [S. F. No. 16235. In Bank. January 31, 1940.] VIOLET PRAGER, Respondent, v. E. M. ISREAL, Appellant. COUNSEL Theodore Hale and Carroll B. Crawford for Appellant. Parker & Stanbury, Harry D. Parker and Vernon W. Hunt, as Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Appellant. Jerome L. Schiller for Respondent. […]

The Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court , 15 Cal.2d 99 [L. A. No. 16928. In Bank. January 31, 1940.] THE TIMES-MIRROR COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. [L. A. No. 16929. In Bank. January 31, 1940.] THE TIMES-MIRROR COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT […]

Weber v. County of Santa Barbara , 15 Cal.2d 82 [L. A. No. 16106. In Bank. January 26, 1940.] HILDA OLSEN BOLDT WEBER, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, Respondent. COUNSEL Griffith & Thornburgh for Appellant. Stater & Dawson, John J. Dawson, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Alfred Sutro, Francis N. Marshall, Holbrook & Tarr, W. […]

Dawson v. County of Los Angeles , 15 Cal.2d 77 [L. A. No. 16854. In Bank. January 26, 1940.] GEORGE DAWSON, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (a Body Corporate and Politic), Respondent. COUNSEL Stater & Dawson and John H. Dawson for Appellant. Holbrook & Tarr, W. Sumner Holbrook, Jr., Miller, Chevalier, Peeler & Wilson […]

American T. Co. v. California etc. Ins. Co. , 15 Cal.2d 42 [S. F. No. 15797. In Bank. January 22, 1940.] AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA WESTERN STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. COUNSEL Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison for Appellant. Williamson & Wallace, Ware & Ware, Downey, Brand & Seymour, Stephen […]

California W. S. L. Ins. Co. v. Pacific etc. Co. Ltd. , 15 Cal.2d 763 [S. F. No. 16026. In Bank. January 22, 1940.] CALIFORNIA WESTERN STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. PACIFIC AMERICAN COMPANY, LTD. (a Corporation), Appellant. COUNSEL Chickering & Gregory, Stephen R. Duhring, Bauer, MacDonald, Schultheis & Pettit, MacDonald, Schultheis […]

California W. S. L. Ins. Co. v. Tucker , 15 Cal.2d 69 [S. F. No. 16027. In Bank. January 22, 1940.] CALIFORNIA WESTERN STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. PHYLLIS DeYOUNG TUCKER, Appellant. COUNSEL Garret W. McEnerney and Andrew F. Burke for Appellant. Williamson & Wallace, Ware & Ware, Downey, Brand & Seymour, […]

In re StepSay , 15 Cal.2d 71 [L. A. No. 17287. In Bank. January 22, 1940.] In the Matter of the Application of BEN B. STEPSAY for Admission to Practice Law. COUNSEL L. Arion Lewis, Jr., for Petitioner. Philbrick McCoy for Respondent State Bar. OPINION THE COURT. Petitioner herein was admitted as an attorney at […]

Waterland v. Superior Court , 15 Cal.2d 34 [Sac. No. 5324. In Bank. January 17, 1940.] TYRE H. WATERLAND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Busick & Busick and O. F. Meldon for Petitioner. Johnson & Curtright, P. H. Johnson, C. K. Curtright and Charles A. Bliss for Respondents. […]

Votaw?v.?Farmers?A.?Inter-Ins.?Exch.?,?15?Cal.2d?24 [Sac.?No.?5143.?In?Bank.?January?8,?1940.] E.?VOTAW,?Respondent,?v.?FARMERS?AUTOMOBILE?INTER-INSURANCE?EXCHANGE?et?al.,?Appellants. COUNSEL James?W.?Hughes?and?J.?Joseph?Sullivan?for?Appellants.?[15?Cal.2d?25] Lasher?B.?Gallagher,?W.?H.?Stammer,?Galen?McKnight,?Morgan?J.?Doyle,?J.?Joseph?Sullivan,?Bronson,?Bronson?& McKinnon,?Finlayson,?Bennett?&?Morrow?and?Henry?L.?Knoop,?as?Amici?Curiae,?on?Behalf?of?Appellants. Calvert?Snyder,?Ralph?McGee,?Harold?Raines?and?T.?P.?Wittschen?for?Respondent. OPINION SHENK,?J. The?defendants?have?appealed?from?an?adverse?judgment?in?an?action?on?an?insurance?policy. The?plaintiff,?as?the?owner?of?an?automobile,?was?insured?against?so-?called?public?liability?by?a?policy?issued?February?6,?1931.?The?defendant?insurance?companies?were?the?insurers.?After?the?policy?was?issued?the?plaintiff?sold?the?automobile?to?one?Kin?on?an?oral?contract?of?conditional?sale?under?which?Kin?paid?a?portion?of?the?purchase?price?and?received?possession?of?the?car.?The?plaintiff?retained?both?the?certificate?of?ownership?and?the?certificate?of?registration?which?had?been?issued?to?him?pursuant?to?the?California?Vehicle?Act.?(Stats.?1923,?p.?517,?as?amended.)?Neither?the?plaintiff?nor?Kin?made?a?report?of?the?sale?to?the?department?of?motor?vehicles,?as?required?by?the?statute.?Such?was?the?status?of?the?several?parties?on?June?3,?1933,?when?the?automobile,?in?the?possession?of?and?being?operated?by?Kin,?caused?personal?injuries?to?one?Bunch,?who?sued?the?plaintiff?and?Kin?for?damages?for?alleged?negligent?operation?of?the?car.?Judgment?was?rendered?against?Kin?in?the?sum?of?$4,341.27?and?in?favor?of?Mr.?Votaw.?On?appeal?by?the?plaintiff?therein?Mr.?Votaw?was?held?to?be?equally?liable?in?that?amount?on?the?ground?that?no?notice?of?the?sale?had?been?given?as?required?by?law?and?that?Mr.?Votaw?continued?to?be?liable?for?injuries?to?a?third?person?under?the?provisions?of?section?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code.?Judgment?was?directed?accordingly.?(Bunch?v.?Kin,?2?Cal.App.2d?81?[37?PaCal.2d?744].)?Upon?the?issuance?of?execution,?Mr.?Votaw?satisfied?the?judgment?and?brought?the?present?action?to?recover?the?amount?paid?by?him. By?the?terms?of?the?policy?as?originally?issued?the?defendants?herein?were?relieved?from?liability?”if?the?interest?in?the?automobile?described?herein?is?at?any?time?other?than?sole?and?unconditional?ownership”.?The?defendants?contend?[15?Cal.2d?26]?that?upon?the?sale?to?Kin?the?insured?ceased?to?possess?the?ownership?required?by?the?provisions?of?the?policy.?Much?argument?is?addressed?to?that?point,?but?it?is?unnecessary?to?consider?it?because?of?our?conclusion?that?the?judgment?in?any?event?should?be?affirmed. Prior?to?the?accident?involved?in?Bunch?v.?Kin,?supra,?the?defendants?sent?to?Mr.?Votaw?a?rider?having?the?heading?”Extended?Coverage?(omnibus?clause)”,?to?be?attached?to?and?to?become?a?part?of?the?policy.?The?pertinent?portions?of?that?rider?read?as?follows: “It?is?made?a?condition?of?the?policy?to?which?this?endorsement?is?attached?that,?beginning?at?noon,?standard?time,?January?1,?1933,?at?the?address?of?the?named?insured?stated?herein,?the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?under?Part?II?relating?to?Property?Damage?and?Public?Liability?and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy,?shall?also?inure?to?the?benefit?of?any?person?or?persons?while?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?described?herein,?and?to?any?person,?firm?or?corporation?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.” In?transmitting?the?foregoing?endorsement?or?omnibus?clause?the?defendants?addressed?a?letter?to?Mr.?Votaw?in?which?it?was?stated: “We?are?enclosing?an?endorsement?form?which?you?will?please?attach?to?your?policy.?It?is?for?the?purpose?of?broadening?the?terms?of?the?same?to?meet?present?automobile?driving?conditions.?This?endorsement?provides?for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission),?and?gives?to?them?all?the?protection?afforded?you?by?your?policy.?It?also?provides?for?compliance?with?the?Owners?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?Exchange?operates?or?in?which?you?may?be?traveling?at?the?time?of?an?accident?involving?your?insured?car.?There?will?be?no?additional?charge?for?the?extension?of?this?coverage.?In?granting?the?extension?of?this?coverage?the?Governing?Board?of?the?Exchange?is?keeping?to?the?policy?of?providing?its?members?with?adequate?coverage?to?meet?the?various?changes?in?laws?and?conditions?affecting?the?driving?of?automobiles.” It?is?the?contention?of?the?defendants?that?the?provisions?of?the?rider?had?no?effect?upon?the?coverage?of?the?[15?Cal.2d?27]?original?policy?for?the?reason?that?the?terms?of?the?rider?were?to?be?”subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy”,?including?the?sale?and?unconditional?ownership?clause. The?plaintiff?contends?that?the?purpose?of?the?rider?was?fairly?expressed?by?the?letter?of?the?defendants?in?transmitting?it;?that?such?purpose?was?to?”broaden?the?terms”?of?the?policy?”to?meet?present?day?driving?conditions”,?and?to?make?the?”endorsement”?cover?”Owners?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?Exchange?operates”,?and?that?this?”extension?of?coverage”?was?to?furnish?the?insured?with?protection?”to?meet?the?various?changes?in?laws?and?conditions?affecting?the?driving?of?automobiles”. [1]?The?letter?of?transmittal?undoubtedly?described?the?purpose?and?effect?of?the?omnibus?clause?correctly,?at?least?in?so?far?as?it?applies?to?the?facts?in?this?case.?By?its?terms?the?rider?was?intended?to?protect?the?insured?in?the?event?that?he?be?held?liable?under?any?”Owners?Responsibility?Laws”?of?the?states?in?which?the?defendants?operated,?which?would?include?this?state.?If?the?language?of?the?rider?did?not?have?that?effect,?it?was?meaningless. It?should?be?noted?that?section?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code?had?recently?been?enacted?(1929)?and?was,?very?significantly,?an?”Owners?Responsibility?Law”,?as?reasonably?contemplated?by?the?omnibus?clause.?That?section?made?it?possible?to?impose?liability?by?reason?of?ownership?of?the?mere?legal?title?of?the?car?provided?at?the?time?of?the?injury?the?car?was?being?operated?with?the?consent?of?such?owner.?There?can?be?no?doubt?that?at?the?time?of?the?accident?the?automobile?in?question?was?being?operated?by?Kin?with?the?consent?of?the?plaintiff.?(Sly?v.?American?Indemnity?Co.,?127?Cal.App.?202?[15?PaCal.2d?522]),?and?it?had?been?established?by?final?judgment?that?the?plaintiff?was?”legally?responsible”?for?such?operation,?notwithstanding?the?fact?that?he?had?contracted?to?sell?it?and?had?delivered?it?to?Kin. [2]?The?effect?of?the?omnibus?clause?was?to?modify?in?favor?of?the?insured?the?terms?of?the?original?policy.?Instances?where?this?result?has?been?declared?are?cited?in?the?briefs.?For?example,?the?case?of?Firkins?v.?Zurich?General?A.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?111?Cal.App.?655?[295?P.?1051],?involved?the?public?liability?provisions?of?a?policy?which?[15?Cal.2d?28]?provided?that?said?policy?should?not?cover?”in?respect?of?any?automobile?…?while?driven?or?manipulated?by?any?person?…?under?sixteen?years?of?age?in?any?event”.?An?endorsement?attached?to?the?policy?provided:?”The?policy?to?which?this?endorsement?is?attached?is?hereby?extended?to?apply?to?any?person?…?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured,?or?if?the?named?assured?is?an?individual,?with?the?permission?of?an?adult?member?of?the?named?assured’s?household?…”?The?accident?occurred?while?the?car?was?being?operated,?with?the?permission?of?the?insured,?by?his?fourteen-year-old?son.?The?insurance?company?denied?liability?because?of?the?age?of?the?driver.?In?passing?upon?the?effect?of?the?rider?the?court?said:?”There?appears?to?be?no?difficulty?in?reconciling?the?language?of?the?policy?with?that?of?the?rider?on?the?subject?of?liability?on?account?of?the?age?of?the?chauffeur.?It?may?be?reasonably?construed?to?mean?that?the?surety?company?shall?not?be?liable?upon?the?policy?’while?[the?machine?was]?driven?or?manipulated?by?any?person?…?under?sixteen?years?of?age’?unless?such?minor?was?operating?the?car?’with?the?permission?of?an?adult?member?of?the?assured’s?household’,?in?which?event?the?company?is?liable.?To?construe?the?language?of?this?instrument?otherwise?would?defeat?the?apparent?intent?of?the?parties?and?render?the?quoted?language?of?the?rider?valueless.”?A?like?result?was?reached?in?Swift?v.?Zurich?General?A.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?112?Cal.App.?709?[297?P.?578],?where?it?was?held?that?a?policy?providing?that?coverage?should?not?apply?when?the?car?was?being?operated?by?a?person?under?sixteen?years?of?age?was?superseded?by?a?rider?attached?to?the?policy?which?provided?that?the?coverage?was?extended?to?apply?to?any?person?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?of?the?car?with?the?owner’s?consent. [3]?It?must?be?conceded?that?the?omnibus?clause?here?under?consideration,?together?with?the?letter?of?transmittal,?rendered?the?contract?of?insurance?as?a?whole?ambiguous?and?consequently?subject?to?construction,?and?that?this?ambiguity?was?caused?by?the?insurer.?Any?fair?and?reasonable?interpretation?of?the?original?contract?as?modified?by?the?rider?leads?to?the?conclusion?that?the?insured?would?be?protected?against?any?change?in?the?laws?of?the?state?with?reference?to?”Owners?Responsibility”,?such?as?the?enactment?of?section?[15?Cal.2d?29]?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code,?especially?when?considered?in?connection?with?sections?45?and?45?3/4?of?the?California?Vehicle?Act?in?force?at?the?time?of?the?accident.?Furthermore,?any?doubts?arising?by?reason?of?ambiguities?caused?by?the?insurer?must,?under?familiar?rules?of?construction?of?insurance?contracts,?be?resolved?in?favor?of?the?insured. The?judgment?is?affirmed. Houser,?J.,?Gibson,?J.,?and?Waste,?C.J.,?concurred. Carter,?J.,?deeming?himself?disqualified,?did?not?participate. EDMONDS,?J., Dissenting. In?my?judgment,?the?decision?holding?the?insurer?liable?is?based?upon?an?erroneous?construction?of?the?contract?between?the?parties.?Moreover,?it?passes?over,?as?unnecessary?for?determination,?the?question?whether?the?named?insured?was?the?sole?and?unconditional?owner?of?the?automobile?at?the?time?of?the?accident?which?occasioned?the?present?litigation.?In?effect,?the?court?holds?that?regardless?of?the?insurer’s?contract?that?it?will?pay?the?named?insured’s?obligations?only?so?long?as?the?specified?ownership?continues,?it?is?liable?under?a?supplemental?agreement?which?was?made?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy. The?endorsement?provides?that?”the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?…?and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy?shall?also?inure?to?the?benefit?of?any?person?or?persons?while?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?described?herein?and?to?any?person,?firm?or?corporation?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured”.?By?this?addition?to?the?policy?the?insurer?extended?the?original?coverage?to?include?persons?other?than?the?insured;?that?is?to?say,?so?long?as?the?policy?was?in?effect?”and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations”?of?the?contract,?the?insurer?agreed?to?indemnify?any?third?person?driving?the?automobile?or?responsible?for?its?operation?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.?As?stated?by?the?appellant?in?its?letter?transmitting?the?endorsement,?it?”provides?for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?[15?Cal.2d?30]?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission)?and?gives?to?them?all?the?protection?afforded?you?by?your?policy”. The?two?insuring?agreements?are?separate?and?distinct?provisions?embodied?in?the?one?contract.?By?the?policy?as?originally?written?the?named?insured?was?the?only?person?insured?against?loss.?Under?the?endorsement?the?insurance?was?extended?to?protect?any?unnamed?person?using?the?automobile?or?being?responsible?for?its?operation?under?specific?conditions.?It?provided?that?the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?should?also?”inure?to?the?benefit?of”?certain?other?persons,?or,?in?other?words,?that?such?insurance?should?devolve?by?law?as?a?right?and?be?available?to?anyone?who?came?within?the?specific?conditions.?But?it?gave?the?named?insured?no?rights?which?he?did?not?have?before?and?the?added?protection?was?specifically?made?”subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy”. It?is?this?provision?of?the?omnibus?clause?which?distinguishes?the?present?case?from?Firkins?v.?Zurich?General?Acc.?&?L.?Co.,?111?Cal.App.?655?[295?P.?1051].?There?was?no?dispute?presented?by?that?case?concerning?who?was?insured?at?the?time?of?the?accident,?but?the?controversy?was?whether?the?judgment?creditor?of?the?named?insured?could?recover?against?the?insurer?because?of?an?accident?which?occurred?when?the?insured’s?automobile?was?driven?by?a?fourteen-year-old?boy.?The?policy?excluded?coverage?when?the?automobile?was?driven?by?any?person?under?sixteen?years?of?age.?By?the?endorsement?coverage?was?extended?to?”any?person”?using?it?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.?It?was?held?that?this?provision?made?the?insurer?liable?to?the?plaintiff?because?at?the?time?of?the?accident?the?automobile?was?being?operated?with?the?insured’s?consent. The?action?of?Swift?v.?Zurich?General?Acc.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?112?Cal.App.?709?[297?P.?578],?was?brought?by?a?named?insured,?against?whom?judgment?had?been?rendered,?against?the?insurer.?The?policy?included?an?endorsement?identical?with?the?one?before?the?court?in?the?Firkins?case.?It?was?held?that?the?insured?might?recover?the?amount?of?the?judgment?which?was?awarded?because?of?an?accident?in?which?a?minor?was?driving?the?automobile?with?her?consent,?notwithstanding?the?age?limitation.?The?recovery?was?not?upon?the?extended?coverage?agreement?but?under?the?[15?Cal.2d?31]?ordinary?policy?terms.?Because?of?statutory?provisions,?the?insured?was?liable?for?the?damages?resulting?from?a?collision?which?occurred?while?the?automobile?was?driven?by?a?minor?with?her?consent,?and?the?court?held?that?the?provision?limiting?coverage?to?persons?under?sixteen?years?of?age?had?been?superseded?by?the?endorsement?which?extended?insurance?to?any?person?without?restriction. It?is?difficult?to?see?the?logic?of?this?reasoning.?Had?the?judgment?been?against?the?minor?driver,?as?the?endorsement?applied?to?”any?person”?without?limitation?as?to?age,?then?he?could?recover?against?the?insurer.?But?the?court?measured?the?liability?of?the?insurer?to?the?insured?by?reading?into?the?terms?of?the?contract?under?which?it?agreed?to?protect?him,?provisions?concerning?insurance?granted?to?a?third?person,?one?driving?the?automobile?with?the?consent?of?the?insured. However,?that?presents?a?situation?entirely?different?from?that?of?the?plaintiff?in?the?present?case?who?must?recover?if?at?all?as?a?person?insured?by?the?omnibus?clause?but?not?by?the?policy.?Here?there?is?no?inconsistency?or?ambiguity?between?the?two?insuring?agreements.?”Where?the?terms?are?plain?and?explicit?and?the?meaning?clear,?courts?indulge?in?no?forced?construction?in?order?to?cast?a?liability?upon?the?insurer?which?it?has?not?assumed.”?(14?Cal.Jur.?446;?Maryland?Cas.?Co.?v.?Industrial?Acc.?Com.,?209?Cal?394,?395?[287?P.?468].) When?the?accident?happened,?Votaw?was?not?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?with?the?consent?of?the?named?insured;?it?was?Kin?who?was?doing?this.?Under?these?circumstances,?if?the?policy?was?then?in?effect?Votaw?was?covered?as?the?insured?named?in?it?and?the?extended?coverage?protected?Kin,?the?driver?of?the?car.?Reading?the?policy?of?insurance?and?the?endorsement?together,?it?seems?obvious?that?the?same?person?could?not?be?the?insured?under?both?agreements,?nor?could?a?person?insured?under?one?claim?the?protection?afforded?by?the?other. On?the?other?hand,?it?seems?clear?that?the?insurance?was?not?in?effect?after?Votaw?sold?his?automobile?to?Kin.?The?California?Vehicle?Act?(Stats.?1923,?p.?517,?as?amended),?in?effect?at?that?time,?required?that?within?ten?days?after?a?transfer?of?the?title?or?interest?of?a?legal?owner?in?or?to?a?registered?automobile,?the?certificate?of?ownership?be?forwarded?[15?Cal.2d?32]?to?the?division?of?motor?vehicles;?thereupon?the?division?”shall?issue?to?the?owner?and?legal?owner?entitled?thereto,?by?reason?of?such?transfer,?a?new?certificate?of?registration?and?certificate?of?ownership?respectively?…?Until?said?division?shall?have?issued?said?new?certificate?of?registration?and?certificate?of?ownership?as?hereinbefore?in?subdivision?(d)?provided,?delivery?of?such?vehicle?shall?be?deemed?not?to?have?been?made?and?title?thereto?shall?be?deemed?not?to?have?passed?and?said?intended?transfer?shall?be?deemed?to?be?incomplete?and?not?to?be?valid?or?effective?for?any?purpose.” This?section?does?not?purport?to?limit?or?restrict?the?ownership?of?an?automobile.?One?may?have?record?title?to?property?and?not?be?its?owner;?likewise,?transfer?of?the?legal?title?to?property?may?not?have?any?effect?upon?the?ownership.?The?statute?expressly?recognizes?this?distinction?in?providing?for?a?”certificate?of?registration”?to?the?”owner”?and?a?”certificate?of?ownership”?to?the?”legal?owner”,?and?affects?only?the?legal?title?to?an?automobile?as?distinguished?from?equitable?ownership?of?it.?(See?Sly?v.?American?Ind.?Co.,?127?Cal.App.?202,?207?[15?PaCal.2d?522];?Swing?v.?Lingo,?129?Cal.App.?518?[19?PaCal.2d?56];?Kenny?v.?Christianson,?200?Cal.?419?[253?P.?715,?50?A.L.R.?1297];?Pendell?v.?Thomas,?95?Cal.App.?33?[272?P.?306];?Goodman?v.?Anglo?Cal.?T.?Co.,?62?Cal.App.?702?[217?P.?1078];?23?California?Law?Review,?557,?562.)?Therefore,?although?by?Mr.?Votaw’s?failure?to?comply?with?the?provisions?of?the?California?Vehicle?Act,?supra,?the?legal?title?remained?in?him,?yet?Mr.?Kin?acquired?an?interest?in?it?which,?according?to?the?law?as?I?read?it,?relieved?the?insurer?from?liability?under?its?contract?in?the?circumstance?shown?in?this?case. The?respondent?lays?great?stress?upon?the?statement?in?the?insurer’s?letter?concerning?the?endorsement?that?it?”provides?for?compliance?with?the?Owner’s?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?exchange?operates,?or?in?which?you?may?be?traveling?at?the?time?of?an?accident?involving?your?insured?car”.?This?comment?is?not?an?insuring?agreement?and?may?not?be?construed?accordingly.?If?it?may?properly?be?considered?for?any?purpose?it?adds?nothing?to?the?plaintiff’s?cause?of?action. In?California?the?owner?of?an?automobile?is?liable?for?the?death?or?injury?of?a?person?or?for?damage?to?property?occasioned?[15?Cal.2d?33]?by?any?person?using?it?with?the?permission,?express?or?implied,?of?such?owner.?(Sec.?1714?1/4?Civ.?Code,?now?Vehicle?Code,?sec.?402.)?Under?this?statute,?which?is?substantially?the?same?as?those?of?many?other?states,?responsibility?is?limited?to?the?amount?of?five?thousand?dollars?for?the?death?of?or?injury?to?one?person?in?any?one?accident.?It?also?provides?”that?in?any?action?against?an?owner?on?account?of?imputed?negligence?as?imposed?by?this?section,?the?operator?of?said?vehicle?whose?negligence?is?imputed?to?the?owner?shall?be?made?a?party?defendant?provided?personal?service?of?process?can?be?had?upon?said?operator?within?this?state,?and?upon?recovery?of?judgment,?recourse?shall?first?be?had?against?the?property?of?said?operator?so?served”. Under?this?statute?the?operator?remains?primarily?liable?for?all?damages?suffered?as?a?result?of?his?negligence.?The?owner?has?a?limited?responsibility,?which?is?secondary?in?the?sense?that?execution?of?a?judgment?shall?first?be?levied?upon?the?property?of?the?operator.?The?ability?of?the?operator?whom?an?owner?has?allowed?to?drive?his?car?to?respond?in?damages?is,?therefore,?of?much?interest?to?the?owner?in?many?ways.?Undoubtedly,?the?desire?of?owners?to?make?certain?that?any?persons?to?whom?they?entrust?their?automobiles?have?insurance?coverage?in?their?own?right?leads?insurers?to?adopt?the?omnibus?clause?as?a?standard?form.?By?a?policy?containing?that?clause?the?owner?has?provided?insurance?protecting?any?person?driving?his?automobile?with?his?permission.?With?such?a?contract?in?force,?he?has?complied?with?the?statute?by?making?certain?that?recourse?may?be?successfully?had?upon?the?operator?for?any?judgment?rendered?in?an?action?for?damages?suffered?by?reason?of?the?operator’s?negligence. According?to?these?views?the?judgment?should?be?reversed?with?directions?to?enter?judgment?for?the?defendant. CURTIS,?J., Dissenting. I?concur?in?the?dissenting?opinion?of?Mr.?Justice?Edmonds.?It?is?conceded?by?the?majority?opinion?that?the?plaintiff?may?not?recover?under?the?policy?as?originally?written?as?he?was?not?the?unconditional?owner?of?the?automobile?at?the?time?of?the?accident,?he?having?disposed?of?the?automobile?to?Kin?under?a?conditional?contract?of?sale.?The?right?of?plaintiff?to?[15?Cal.2d?34]?recover?is?accordingly?predicated?solely?upon?the?terms?of?the?rider?issued?by?the?insurer?and?the?letter?written?to?the?insured?enclosing?the?rider.?By?the?rider?the?terms?of?the?policy?are?made?to?inure?to?the?benefit?of?all?persons?operating?the?automobile?”With?the?permission?of?the?named?insured”.?By?no?reasonable?construction?of?this?language?may?it?be?made?to?refer?to?the?owner?of?the?car?as?it?is?specifically?limited?to?those?persons?driving?the?car?with?the?permission?of?the?owner.?That?it?was?intended?by?the?rider?to?broaden?the?terms?of?the?policy?so?that?it?would?include?third?persons?and?third?persons?only?is?made?clear?by?the?terms?of?the?letter?which?definitely?states?that?the?rider,?or?endorsement?as?it?is?called?by?the?writer?of?the?letter,?provides?”for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission).”?I?am?unable?to?see?how?this?language?which?purports?only?to?extend?the?terms?of?the?policy?to?third?persons?can?be?construed?as?a?waiver?by?the?insurer?of?the?terms?of?the?policy?which?relieve?the?insurer?of?liability?to?the?owner?of?the?car?if?the?latter’s?interest?is?at?any?time?other?than?a?sole?and?unconditional?ownership.

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court , 15 Cal.2d 16 [L. A. No. 17296. In Bank. January 5, 1940.] CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. COUNSEL Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Leon T. David, Assistant City Attorney, and Franklin W. Peck, […]

Southern Service Co., Ltd., v. Los Angeles , 15 Cal.2d 1 [L. A. No. 16598. In Bank. January 2, 1940.] SOUTHERN SERVICE COMPANY, LTD. (a Corporation), Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (a Body Corporate and Politic), Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Intervener and Respondent. COUNSEL Allard, Holbrook […]