*1 plaintiff fact was with the causal connection have against specific performance bring “obliged” a suit the sellers. of action a cause having failed state
Plaintiff sustained. properly demurrer was defendant affirmed. J., concurred. Drapeau, Doran, 18, 1952. September July BECKER, ROY J. *2 V. for S. O. Prichard Attorney
Edmund Brown, G. Dan General, Kaufmann, De- puty Attorney General, Ernest Roll, Attorney, S. District Marcus R. Brandler Finnerty, and Thomas F. Jr., Deputy District for Attorneys, Respondent.
DRAPEAU, J. The Board City of Education of the private corporations contracts with for the trans portation of children city to and from the schools.
and in 1951 the board made three such contracts with Landier Management Company. Other such contracts were made during, period before and after mentioned, with which we are not concerned in this ease.
The required contracts here under consideration the Lan- dier Company to insure against public its busses liability property and damage, and compensa- for workmen’s company procured tion. The insurance. this Commissions on the under two of the contracts paid were to three brokers, insurance who shared them equally. One of these Roy brokers was Mr. Becker, J. who was member the board of education when the contracts were paid made. No had commissions on the third developed. when computed upon gross were income of Management Company under the contracts. Thus gross increased, as the income premiums, part and that paid Becker, the commissions to Mr. increased. wilful and cor- accusation of jury presented an grand part Becker for his against Mr. in office rupt misconduct 3072 of the. Government the above transactions. Section is found true if such an accusation provides that Code be removed from office. the accused shall superior adjudged accused judge found the The trial judg- appealed from the from office. his removal resigned. Motion to dismiss the ment, then the case is now before us this court. So the merits. He Becker this is be said: was and of Mr.
On behalf integrity. honesty lay- He unquestioned man of is a attorney. Pie has been in the man, insurance business years. He was a member many for education years many years. many And for he was insurance companies, the Landier and wrote insurance broker for question here every kind involved—all without as to the serving of his on board of education propriety and at acting transportation time as insurance broker for contracting with the board. charges were it was unlawful When *3 in insurance of the participate with the board education, in their contracts of lawyer, deputy a a of the County talked with assigned Counsel, to advise the board of- education. That lawyer advised Mr. Becker several opinion times that in his illegal—at was not his conduct least from the facts as the them. lawyer understood And in among discussions members education, board of two lawyers, of the of them expressed presence in opinion was the of Mr. Becker. earnestly argues Becker he guilty Mr. that was not corrupt office, or of misconduct in wilful he should criminally branded as argument have been corrupt. not genuine sympathies to the has a of this court. corrupt “wilful or However, the misconduct necessarily imply corruption or criminal in office” does not willingness “simply a or It means to intention. wrongful design acquire to or act;”—“a commit the cause advantage person or to the pecuniary some other People Code, §7, 3; subds. 1 and (Pen. Harby, v. the act.” 874].) 759, Presiding 767 P.2d As CaI.App.2d 51 Mr. [125 says People Pearson, in v. Cal.App.2d 9, 111 Moore Justice doing : “The mere of an 16 P.2d act forbidden [244 35] ’ ’ judgment against the is the sum total of him. by the statute
327 any event, may sympathies lie, and wherever our by findings is bound the made and inferences the by drawn judge. from the facts the trial Under our legal system province questions it is the trial courts decide fact, appellate questions courts to decide of law.
Commencing Payne Jacobs, with v. 1 it has Cal. consistently findings jury held that court, the of a or a decided upon weight evidence, will be reviewed appellate A court. careful review of record discloses substantial support findings evidence to trial of the court.
The substantial evidence rule is also determinative of Mr. Becker’s he contention that should not have been removed from good office because whatever he did was in faith and in reliance the advice of counsel. The testi mony inis conflict as to whether he complete made a fair and disclosure of all the deputy county facts to the for the counsel meetings inor of the Board of Education. This con flict was resolved the court. Nor would the - solely be determined on whether Mr. Becker acted under advice of counsel fact, or not. This if fact, it be a weighed is to be conjunction and considered in with all of the evidence (People in the Wyatt, case. v. Cal.App. 629].) P. [281 thing
One more remains for decision: not, Whether or law, as matter of public may participate officer in in surance in the circumstances in this case. Section 1011 of the Education Code reads: “No member govern of the ing school district shall be in interested ’’ contract made the board of which he is a member. plain
It was the intent Legislature, plainly expressed statute, prohibit even such an indirect interest Mr. Becker had in the contracts of the board of education with Landier Company. To hold otherwise would be to introduce exception into the law an not intended expressed by or the lawmaking power. is affirmed.
White P. concurred. DORAN, J.—I concur. The issue herein revolves around meaning application “interested in provided contract” as in section 1011 of the Education Code. reads, That section “No member of the governing any school district shall be interested in contract made (Italics added.) member.”
by the he is a which meanings applications interest has numerous word contemplated the section refers but the obvious distinguished interest as actual, specific to an and official interpreted interest. Thus perfunctory from a or casual provision applicable, the record reveals that those liability insurance transporting pupils must have appears companies approved by the board. It also from policies in such insurance the school district the record the trans- beneficiaries, is named as one of the as well as “in- portation company. being appellant This so the meaning board,” in a terested within the application quoted. of section above for a August 14, 1952. was denied July 21, EDWARD JAMES
WHITTON, Appellant.