VINCENT v. MCCOLGAN BANK AND CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX COM (1944)

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

The plaintiff complains because we did not mention or discuss Robinson v. McColgan, 17 Cal.2d 423, 110 P.2d 426, a case he had cited in his brief. He admits that case presented facts showing that therein the trust involved was a naked trust and not an active trust. In our decision we took pains to show that the case at bar involves two active trusts. It follows that authorities in point did not include cases involving naked trusts. Consequently we did not have occasion to cite and discuss any cases which involved naked trusts.

The plaintiff contends that the case at bar presents only a question of statutory construction and that the statute makes no distinction between naked and active trusts. That is so. The statute in terms does not use either expression directly. But it uses the more general expression, income “derived from sources within this state”. Having determined that moneys received from an active trust are moneys “derived from sources within this state”, there was no occasion to go further and discuss moneys derived from naked trusts or other sources.

PER CURIAM.

Hearing granted; TRAYNOR, J., not participating.