Real party in interest was charged with unprofessional conduct in the furnishing of drugs, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2399.5 (amended 1978). Respondent superior court issues a peremptory writ of prohibition restraining the municipal court from proceeding on the ground that such conduct was not subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor. The court of appeal vacated respondent's order. The court granted real party's petition for hearing.
The court held that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2426 did not encompass an act or omission declared only to be unprofessional conduct and not expressly prescribed as a violation or crime, such as § 2399.5, that § 2426 only applied the punishment for chapter 5 provisions that designated misdemeanor conduct but supplied no punishment, and was only intended to provide a standardized penalty for the various misdemeanor offenses. The court held that where the legislature intended to make unprofessional conduct criminal, it expressly did so without resort to § 2426.
The court discharged the alternative writ of mandate and denied the peremptory writ of mandate. The court held that under the Business and Professions Code, the unprofessional conduct of furnishing drugs without prior examination was not a misdemeanor.
Defendant surviving partner sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which found for plaintiff surviving widow and executrix and held that the surviving partner had an obligation to buy the partnership interest on the death of the other partner.
Two brothers formed a partnership. Later an agreement was entered with a third person to allow the third person to buy into the partnership. Later, the third person withdrew from the partnership and the partners agreed to continue the partnership under the agreement entered into between the partners and the third person. One part of that agreement was that in the event of death, the surviving partners would purchase the interests of the deceased partner. On the death of one partner, the widow demanded that the surviving partner purchase the deceased's share of the partnership. The trial court held that the contract was valid and that the surviving partner had a duty to purchase the interests of the deceased partner as agreed.
On appeal, the court affirmed. The court noted that the agreement was not ambiguous and that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the original agreement. The court also found that the damage for breach of an obligation to pay money only was the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with interest. The judgment of the trial court that the surviving partner was obligated to purchase the interest of the deceased partner was affirmed.