Houze v. Lazard

Ninth Circuit

Houze v. Lazard

106 F.2d 707, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3059

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 1939

DocketNo. 8999

StatusPublished

This text of 106 F.2d 707 (Houze v. Lazard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houze v. Lazard, 106 F.2d 707, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3059 (9th Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This case presents an appeal by the Administrator of the Estate of David Cahn who -intervened in the case before this court of Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco, and Herbert Fleishhacker v. Jean Lazard et al., 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 693, No. 8975, this day decided. We refer to our opinion in that case for the facts pertinent to the proceedings in intervention. The appeal is from the order striking appellant’s complaint in intervention.

We affirm the decision of the trial court upon the following grounds: Assuming that the plaintiffs’ and appellees’ cause of action is real property (see Zartner v. Holzhauer, 204 Wis. 18, 234 N.W. 508), then the right to recover was vested in the heirs. (Cal. Probate Code, Sec. 581) and the administrator was a proper but not a necessary party. Sec. 581. On the other hand, assuming that the cause of action was personalty the heirs still had the right to recover, for under the laws of France, they were vested with an absolute title. See Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Lazard, No. 8975, supra, where the questions are fully discussed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This case presents an appeal by the Administrator of the Estate of David Cahn who -intervened in the case before this court of Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco, and Herbert Fleishhacker v. Jean Lazard et al., 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 693, No. 8975, this day decided. We refer to our opinion in that case for the facts pertinent to the proceedings in intervention. The appeal is from the order striking appellant’s complaint in intervention.

We affirm the decision of the trial court upon the following grounds: Assuming that the plaintiffs’ and appellees’ cause of action is real property (see Zartner v. Holzhauer, 204 Wis. 18, 234 N.W. 508), then the right to recover was vested in the heirs. (Cal. Probate Code, Sec. 581) and the administrator was a proper but not a necessary party. Sec. 581. On the other hand, assuming that the cause of action was personalty the heirs still had the right to recover, for under the laws of France, they were vested with an absolute title. See Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Lazard, No. 8975, supra, where the questions are fully discussed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 F.2d 707, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houze-v-lazard-ca9-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack