# Santa Fe Transportation Co. v. State Board of Equalization

> California Supreme Court · February 6, 1959 · 51 Cal. 2d 531

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9608834

## Case

- **Full name:** SANTA FE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 1959
- **Citations:** 51 Cal. 2d 531; 334 P.2d 907; 1959 Cal. LEXIS 274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCOMB
- **Judges:** Carter, McCOMB
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9608834

## Opinion text

McCOMB, J.
I dissent.
I would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Patrosso in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Santa Fe Transportation Go. v. State Board of Equalisation (Cal. App.), 328 P.2d 990 .
Shenk, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 4, 1959. Shenk, J., Schauer, J., and Me Comb, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted. *543 Gen. Laws, Act 652) was part of a joint deposit agreement entered into by husband and wife while it was in effect, since its repeal any restriction it might theretofore have imposed on the depositors’ power to contract could survive only by virtue of its continued existence as part of the contract of the parties, who could not, however, contract away their power to contract in the future, since the law, not private agreement, determines the essential elements of a valid contract.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9608834. Public record. Not legal advice.