People v. Gould

California Supreme Court

People v. Gould

235 P.2d 604, 37 Cal. 2d 885, 1951 Cal. LEXIS 349

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1951

DocketCrim. 5221

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 235 P.2d 604 (People v. Gould) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gould, 235 P.2d 604, 37 Cal. 2d 885, 1951 Cal. LEXIS 349 (Cal. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

SHENK, J.

The appeal in this case is from judgments of conviction of the defendants Gould and Diamond on several counts of issuing securities without first having obtained a permit pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Securities Law (Corp. Code, §25000 et seq.).

The defendant Ruth Gould with the assistance of her brother, S. P. Diamond, conducted a theatrical school. They entered into contracts with parents of children for the training and participation of the children in television films for a stated fee in return for which the participants were to receive a specified percentage of profits realized from the sale of the film. The same type of contract was involved as was considered in the ease of People v. Syde, ante, p. 765 [235 P.2d 601], this day decided. Our decision in that case that such contracts are not securities within the meaning of the statute controls the disposition of the appeal herein.

The judgments are reversed.

Gibson, C. J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

SHENK, J.

The appeal in this case is from judgments of conviction of the defendants Gould and Diamond on several counts of issuing securities without first having obtained a permit pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Securities Law (Corp. Code, §25000 et seq.).

The defendant Ruth Gould with the assistance of her brother, S. P. Diamond, conducted a theatrical school. They entered into contracts with parents of children for the training and participation of the children in television films for a stated fee in return for which the participants were to receive a specified percentage of profits realized from the sale of the film. The same type of contract was involved as was considered in the ease of People v. Syde, ante, p. 765 [235 P.2d 601], this day decided. Our decision in that case that such contracts are not securities within the meaning of the statute controls the disposition of the appeal herein.

The judgments are reversed.

Gibson, C. J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 P.2d 604, 37 Cal. 2d 885, 1951 Cal. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gould-cal-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack