Appellants sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Kern County (California) that appellants had disposed of certain farm equipment covered by a security agreement executed in respondent's favor and had failed to thereafter satisfy the underlying debt that the equipment secured.
Buyer and respondent seller signed an installment sales contract and security agreement for a self-mechanized corn harvester combine. The Best business lawyers security agreement expressly prohibited the disposition of the collateral without written permission from respondent. Purchaser bought the harvester from buyer and traded the harvester for a tractor from appellants. A decision in favor of respondent that appellants had to satisfy the underlying debt was affirmed and remanded for attorney fees and prejudgment interest determination. Respondent took no action in allowing the transfer and there was no authorization by respondent permitting disposition of the collateral free and clear of the security interest. The fact that each or both appellants was told of the contract did not go merely to show actual notice, but also to show substantial evidence implying that any disposition would not terminate the security. Appellants, as the successors in interest to the signatories, were liable, the same as the original parties. Respondent was also entitled to attorney fees and prejudgment interest.
The court affirmed and remanded for attorney fees and prejudgment interest because respondent did not authorize the transaction and appellants had actual notice of the security interest.
Appellant sought review from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), where the court denied appellant's motion for a new trial after he was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant's main contention was that there was insufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti.
Appellant's wife suddenly disappeared without explanation. Appellant had engaged in a number of suspicious activities surrounding the disappearance. Appellant was subsequently tried for murder and was convicted. The trial court denied appellant's motion for a new trial after he was convicted. Appellant sought review and argued a variety of evidentiary and procedural issues but his main contention was that there was insufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti. On review, the court was not convinced that appellant was deprived of a fair trial. The fact that no body was produced, no direct evidence of death was introduced, and there was no confession did not preclude the judgment. There was no error in receiving evidence of forgery and grand theft by appellant, as this was relevant and material because it tended to prove a motive and knowledge by appellant that his wife was dead. Also, evidence of the declarations and actions of appellant both before and after the disappearance of his wife tended to establish the corpus delicti. The judgment and the order denying motion for a new trial were affirmed accordingly.
Appellant's conviction for murder and sentence to life and the order denying motion for a new trial were affirmed because the lower court properly ruled on the evidentiary issues and otherwise there was no reversible error, there was sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti, and appellant was not deprived of a fair trial.
