Joseph v. Drew ( 1950 )

CARTER, J.

I concur in the judgment of reversal, as I can see no valid distinction between the position taken by plaintiffs in the ease at bar and the legal theory advanced in my dissenting opinions in the cases of Loving & Evans v. Blick, 33 Cal.2d 603, 617 [204 P.2d 23], and Franklin v. Nat C. Goldstone Agency, 33 Cal.2d 628, 633 [204 P.2d 37]. The attempt by the majority to distinguish the ease at bar from the last cited cases is so tenuous and hyperteehnical that it amounts to the splitting of hairs.

Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied January 25, 1951.