finding that it was proper for a court to instruct the jury that a corporation was the alter ego of a partnership where the corporation transferred all of its property to a newly formed partnership for tax reasons, but continued to conduct business under the same name, manner, and with the same stock holders as a partnership with the same proportional interests
How later courts described this case
- finding that it was proper for a court to instruct the jury that a corporation was the alter ego of a partnership where the corporation transferred all of its property to a newly formed partnership for tax reasons, but continued to conduct business under the same name, manner, and with the same stock holders as a partnership with the same proportional interests
- fraud or injustice requirement satisfied when "confusion would be promoted and an unjust result be accomplished if the maintenance of the two entities controlled by the same persons and having an identical name were permitted to frustrate a meritorious claim.”
- “It is not necessary that the plaintiff prove actual fraud. It is enough if the recognition of the two entities as separate would result in an injustice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDMONDS, J.
I concur in the conclusion of Mr. Justice Traynor that the instructions to the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were prejudicially erroneous, but I do not agree with the rule of strict liability stated by him in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 [ 150 P.2d 436 ], and now reiterated.
For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 28, 1949. Edmonds, J., voted for a rehearing.