Legal Opinion · Dissent

Allen v. Cal. Mut. Bldg & Loan Ass'n

California Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1943No. S. F. 16873Published

1DissentTraynor, J.

I dissent. The majority opinion concedes not only that plaintiffs failed to present a claim to the Building and Loan Commissioner pursuant to section 13.16 of the Building and Loan Association Act (Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 986) but that under a proper construction of the act' they could not be regarded as investors excused from presenting claims since their claims did not appear on the books of the association. Plaintiffs are thus allowed to recover without complying with the statutory conditions to recovery. I do not agree that this paradox is compelled by the doctrine of the law of the case.

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Tally v. GanahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Moore v. TrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. England v. Hospital of the Good SamaritanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Klauber v. San Diego Street Car Co.California Supreme Court · 1893

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API