Harris v. Harris

I dissent. I would reverse the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Shoemaker in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Harris v. Harris (Cal.App.), 16 Cal.Rptr. 561, which, so far as necessary for my purposes, reads:

[]*The defendants’ first contention on appeal is that the plaintiff Russell S. Harris, suing as executor of the estate of Susie Almeda Harris, does not have standing to sue to recover one-half of the community property transferred to defendants by Marshall C. Harris. We agree with this contention.

Civil Code, section 172, states (prior to the…