# Chahon v. Schneider

> California Court of Appeal · April 17, 1953 · 117 Cal. App. 2d 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546569

## Case

- **Full name:** MADELAINE CHAHON, Appellant, v. FRANCES SCHNEIDER, Individually and as Executrix Etc., Respondent
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 17, 1953
- **Citations:** 117 Cal. App. 2d 334; 256 P.2d 54; 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1816
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Peters
- **Judges:** Wood (Fred B.)
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546569

## Opinion text

PETERS, P. J.
I concur.
I do so with some reluctance. It is my belief that, under the facts alleged, the question of whether or not there was an estoppel should be decided as a question of fact and not one of law upon a demurrer. If the question were an open one, I would vote for a reversal. But the question is not an open one. The cases of Jirschik v. Farmers & Merck. Nat. Bank, 107 Cal.App.2d 405 [ 237 P.2d 49 ]; Murdock v. Swanson, 85 Cal.App.2d 380 [ 193 P.2d 81 ]; De Mattos v. McGovern, 25 Cal.App.2d 429 [ 77 P.2d 522 ]; Ruinello v. Murray, 36 Cal.2d 687 [ 227 P.2d 251 ], and others, all cited in the majority opinion, on facts stronger than those here alleged, held that, as a matter of law, no estoppel existed. As a judge of an intermediate court I feel bound by those decisions. In my opinion, the whole problem needs reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 11, 1953.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546569. Public record. Not legal advice.