Majority
p. 817[S. F. Nos. 6754, 6755, 6756. In Bank. June 28, 1916.] CLAUS A. SPRECKELS and RUDOLPH SPRECKELS, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Anna C. Spreckels, Deceased, Appellants, v. ADOLPH B. SPRECKELS, Respondent. CLAUS A. SPRECKELS and RUDOLPH SPRECKELS, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Anna C. Spreckels, Deceased, Appellants, v. JOHN D. SPRECKELS, Respondent. CLAUS A. SPRECKELS and RUDOLPH SPRECKELS, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Anna C. Spreckels, Deceased, Appellants., v. ADOLPH B. SPRECKELS and JOHN D. SPRECKELS, Respondents. Fitzgerald, Abbott & Beardsley, Amici Curiae.
Headnote
Husband And Wife — Community Property — Gift by Husband.— Judgments affirmed on the authority of Spreckels v. Spreckels, .ante, p. 775.APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Spreckels v. Spreckels, ante, p. 775.
Charles S. Wheeler, John F. Bowie, Cushing & Cushing, and Nathan M. Moran, for Appellants.
Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck, for Respondents.
The questions presented on these appeals are all determined in the opinion rendered in ease No. 6753, Spreckels v. Spreckels, ante, p. 775, this day decided. All of the actions had the same purpose and object and are based upon the same allegations. The last three actions were begun to avoid technical objections and doubts as to the proper parties to maintain the action. As we have decided that the actions are not maintainable at all, the question as to the parties in interest is immaterial.
The judgment in each of the above-entitled cases is affirmed.
Melvin, J., Henshaw, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., Lawlor, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.