From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gould

Supreme Court of California
Sep 28, 1951
37 Cal.2d 885 (Cal. 1951)

Opinion

Docket No. Crim. 5221.

September 28, 1951.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Thomas J. Cunningham, Judge. Reversed.

Cletus J. Hanifin for Appellants.

Fred N. Howser and Edmund G. Brown, Attorneys General, Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney General, William E. Simpson and S. Ernest Roll, District Attorneys (Los Angeles) and H.L. Arterberry, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.


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 case 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.


Summaries of

People v. Gould

Supreme Court of California
Sep 28, 1951
37 Cal.2d 885 (Cal. 1951)
Case details for

People v. Gould

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RUTH GOULD et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 28, 1951

Citations

37 Cal.2d 885 (Cal. 1951)
235 P.2d 604

Citing Cases

People v. Staver

This agreement is practically identical with the one discussed above except that it contains no language with…

People v. Mills

[1a] Appellant's major contention is that there was no "security" involved in his transaction with Meng and…