Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COHN v. CLARE et al.
Plaintiff sued to have it determined that a lease secured by defendant Clare from his codefendants was held in trust for the benefit of plaintiff. The trial court made findings favorable to defendants and denied relief to plaintiff.
Plaintiff and his predecessors conducted a cigar store in the city of Oakland for about twelve years prior to this controversy. Defendant Clare was employed for several years as manager of that store and was discharged when the business became unprofitable. Plaintiff had rented the premises from the other defendants under a written lease which expired about two years before the controversy. After his discharge, Clare procured a lease covering the same premises, and his codefendants ousted plaintiff through proceedings in ejectment. The trial court found that the lease was obtained by Clare after the relation of employee had been terminated, and that it was not procured through any secret or confidential information obtained by said defendant in the course of his employment.
There is substantial evidence to support these findings. The fact that plaintiff and his predecessors had been operating on a month to month tenancy was generally known and discussed. It was not a “secret of the trade.” Any one in or out of the business could have ascertained whether a term lease were recorded and, upon inquiry, could have learned the terms of the tenancy under which the premises were occupied. This information is not like a confidential list of customers such as is involved in the “laundry” and similar cases. There the list is confidential information acquired by reason of the employment only. Here the information is neither confidential nor secret, and it could be learned by any one outside of the employment. The distinction is found in Avocado Sales Co. v. Wyse, 122 Cal. App. 627, 10 P.(2d) 485, and in those cases in which the business was of such a character that it depended upon keeping its lists of customers and other information secret.
In view of the court's finding here that the lease was obtained after the employee's discharge and upon information which was neither secret nor confidential, and which was not obtained by reason of, or in the course of, the employment, the case of Gower v. Andrew, 59 Cal. 119, 43 Am. Rep. 242, and similar authorities have no application.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOURSE, Presiding Justice.
We concur: STURTEVANT, J.; SPENCE, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 9813.
Decided: April 29, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)