case out rule in California

1951(Young v. Young, 126 Cal.App. 306 [ 14 P.2d 580 ].) Appellants have shown nothing to take the present case out of this rule, or to bring it within the rule stated by this court in Cummims v. *260 Cummins, 7 Cal.App.2d 294 [ 46 P.2d 284 ], that ‘a conveyance . . . to a husband and wife as joint tenants does not necessarily . . . preclude the idea of their holding the same as community property.’ ” (Launer v. Griffen, 60 Cal.App.2d 659, 664 [ 141 P.2d 236 ].) Likewise here, the evidence is not sufficient to take the case out of the rule above stated.

1951(Young v. Young, 126 Cal.App. 306 [ 14 P.2d 580 ].) Appellants have shown nothing to take the present case out of this rule, or to bring it within the rule stated by this court in Cummims v. *260 Cummins, 7 Cal.App.2d 294 [ 46 P.2d 284 ], that ‘a conveyance . . . to a husband and wife as joint tenants does not necessarily . . . preclude the idea of their holding the same as community property.’ ” (Launer v. Griffen, 60 Cal.App.2d 659, 664 [ 141 P.2d 236 ].) Likewise here, the evidence is not sufficient to take the case out of the rule above stated.

1951(Young v. Young, 126 Cal.App. 306 [ 14 P.2d 580 ].) Appellants have shown nothing to take the present case out of this rule, or to bring it within the rule stated by this court in Cummims v. *260 Cummins, 7 Cal.App.2d 294 [ 46 P.2d 284 ], that ‘a conveyance . . . to a husband and wife as joint tenants does not necessarily . . . preclude the idea of their holding the same as community property.’ ” (Launer v. Griffen, 60 Cal.App.2d 659, 664 [ 141 P.2d 236 ].) Likewise here, the evidence is not sufficient to take the case out of the rule above stated.

1951(Young v. Young, 126 Cal.App. 306 [ 14 P.2d 580 ].) Appellants have shown nothing to take the present case out of this rule, or to bring it within the rule stated by this court in Cummims v. *260 Cummins, 7 Cal.App.2d 294 [ 46 P.2d 284 ], that ‘a conveyance . . . to a husband and wife as joint tenants does not necessarily . . . preclude the idea of their holding the same as community property.’ ” (Launer v. Griffen, 60 Cal.App.2d 659, 664 [ 141 P.2d 236 ].) Likewise here, the evidence is not sufficient to take the case out of the rule above stated.

1945We are to view the sequence of events in the order of the actual rather than the possible." (Matter of Schmidlapp, 236 N.Y. 278, 285-286 [ 140 N.E. 697 ].) [4] Respondents finally contend that the controller's admitted failure in 1923 to tax similar trusts, the trusts involved in Wheeler v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 695 , amounted to an administrative construction of the statute, and that this construction was adopted by the Legislature in 1935 when it reenacted the statute, and now precludes taxation in this case.

1945We are to view the sequence of events in the order of the actual rather than the possible.” (Matter of Schmidlapp, 236 N.Y. 278, 285-286 [ 140 N.E. 697 ].) Respondents finally contend that the controller’s admitted failure in 1923 to tax similar trusts, the trusts involved in Wheeler v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 695 , amounted to an administrative construction of the statute, and that this construction was adopted by the Legislature in 1935 when it reenacted the statute, and now precludes taxation in this case.

1944McDevitt v. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 592 (decided before enactment of Code Civ.

1931Marston Co. v. Kochritz, 80 Cal. App. 352 [ 251 Pac. 959 ].) *511 The statement contained in the affidavit of the county-clerk, to which was attached a transcript of the register of actions, is negative in character and we are of the opinion that in the absence of a positive contrary showing, the affirmative statements contained in the affidavits presented on behalf of appellant must prevail and that the circumstances are such as to take the case out of the rule announced in the case first cited.

1931Marston Co. v. Kochritz, 80 Cal. App. 352 [ 251 Pac. 959 ].) *511 The statement contained in the affidavit of the county-clerk, to which was attached a transcript of the register of actions, is negative in character and we are of the opinion that in the absence of a positive contrary showing, the affirmative statements contained in the affidavits presented on behalf of appellant must prevail and that the circumstances are such as to take the case out of the rule announced in the case first cited.

1930In Kottler v. New York Bargain House, Inc., 272 N. Y. 28 [ 150 N. E. 591 ], a decision also by Chief Justice Cardozo, the covenant which was held to take the case out of the general rule above set forth was to the effect that “if the premises . . . become vacant during the said term, the landlord or his representatives may reenter the same . < . and relet the said premises as the agents of the said tenants and receive the rent therefor, applying the same, first, to the payment of such expenses as they may be put to in reentering, and then to the payment of the rent due by these presents; the b

1922The complaint contains an allegation to the effect that after a first refusal of the defendant to pay said check upon the ground of lack of funds to meet it, the payees “personally presented said check to said defendant and told said defendant that unless said check was paid they would cause the arrest of said plaintiff, Tempest Bearden, *378 but notwithstanding said knowledge and in spite thereof the said defendant negligently, willfully and maliciously refused to honor said check . . . , ” and the only question in the case, as is stated in the brief of the appellants, is whether the quoted a

1917(Board of Commrs. v. Mutchler, 137 Ind. 140 , [ 36 N. E. 534 ].) Nor does the added circumstance that both *740 persons were employed by or interested in the same corporation necessarily alter the situation.

1917(Board of Commrs. v. Mutchler, 137 Ind. 140 , [ 36 N. E. 534 ].) Nor does the added circumstance that both *740 persons were employed by or interested in the same corporation necessarily alter the situation.

1908Co. v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. 467 , [ 82 Pac. 70 ], The mere fact that the appeal would lie only to the superior court of Orange county, which court had once determined the ques *382 tions presented adversely to petitioner, presents no reason for tailing the case out of the rule.

1908Co. v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. 467 , [ 82 Pac. 70 ], The mere fact that the appeal would lie only to the superior court of Orange county, which court had once determined the ques *382 tions presented adversely to petitioner, presents no reason for tailing the case out of the rule.

1906Rep. 621 ], declares that where the price is, by the contract, apportioned to each item to be performed, “the contract will generally be held to be severable.” And in Herzog v. Purdy, 119 Cal. 99 , [ 51 Pac. 27 ], the court, in speaking of a similar contract, said: “Such a contract of sale the law regards in general as sever-able, and we discover no evidence here to take the case out of the rule, nothing to show that the sale of one item was contingent upon the sale of the others, or that the contract was for other reasons an entirety.” (In all the foregoing quotations the italics are ours.) T

1906Rep. 621 ], declares that where the price is, by the contract, apportioned to each item to be performed, “the contract will generally be held to be severable.” And in Herzog v. Purdy, 119 Cal. 99 , [ 51 Pac. 27 ], the court, in speaking of a similar contract, said: “Such a contract of sale the law regards in general as sever-able, and we discover no evidence here to take the case out of the rule, nothing to show that the sale of one item was contingent upon the sale of the others, or that the contract was for other reasons an entirety.” (In all the foregoing quotations the italics are ours.) T

1902Whatever may be the hardship in cases like the one here, we can see no ground on which to take the case out of the rule declared in Melone v. Ruffino, 129 Cal. 514 , 1 or make it an exception.

1899In Pennsylvania, it is held that a provision in a will giving the share of a deceased member of a class to his children would have the effect of taking the case out of the rule that a gift to a class goes to -the persons constituting the class at the time the gift takes effect, upon the principle that if the testator by his will shows how he intended a particular class should be made up, the general rules governing a gift to a class must yield to the testator’s expressed intention: In re Denlinger’s Estate, 170 Pa. 104 , 32 Atl. 573 .

1899In Pennsylvania, it is held that a provision in a will giving the share of a deceased member of a class to his children would have the effect of taking the case out of the rule that a gift to a class goes to -the persons constituting the class at the time the gift takes effect, upon the principle that if the testator by his will shows how he intended a particular class should be made up, the general rules governing a gift to a class must yield to the testator’s expressed intention: In re Denlinger’s Estate, 170 Pa. 104 , 32 Atl. 573 .

1897(Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 256, 257 ; More v. Bonnet, 40 Cal. 251 ; 6 Am.

1891A proposal to accept or acceptance upon terms varying from those offered is a rejection of the offer.” (See Breckinridge v. Crocker, 78 Cal. 529 , and cases cited.) We see nothing in the evidence to take the case out of the rule above stated, and we conclude, therefore, that the court below properly found that the plaintiff never authorized or ratified the contract of sale on which he relies.

1884The word u Dolls.” will be readily comprehended as standing for “ dollars.” The employment of this abbreviation for dollars takes the case out of the rule referred to in People v. San Francisco Savings Union, 31 Cal. 132 ; and People v. Hastings, 34 Cal. 574 .