Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1
California Supreme Court
1DissentSchauer, J.
I dissent from the order directing the trial court to dismiss the action.
The holding of the majority opinion depends essentially upon the premise that the program committee and the Raisin Proration Association were authorized by the Agricultural Prorate Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 143a) to pledge surplus-pooled raisins of non-borrowing growers as security for non-recourse loans made to borrowing growers, and, upon default in repayment of the loans, to sell such surplus-pooled raisins of non-borrowers for the account of the borrowers. A necessary subsidiary premise of the majority…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Johnston v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- In Re PeartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Gruben v. Leebrick & Fisher, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Brintle v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.