Clewett v. Clewett

ASHBURN, J. pro tern.*

Defendant husband appeals from an interlocutory judgment of divorce which was granted upon the ground of extreme cruelty. Under a claim of insufficiency of the evidence appellant’s counsel argues the weight of the same, endeavoring to induce this court to reweigh it. “Upon an appeal every intendment is to be indulged in which tends to support the judgment

(Hinds

v.

Oriental Products Co., Inc.,

195 Cal. 655, 661 [235 P. 438]) and every reasonable inference which tends to support a finding must be accepted.

(Estate of Bristol,

23 Cal.2d 221, 223 [143 P.2d 689].) The evidence is to be construed most strongly in favor of the respondent and all conflicts resolved in support of the verdict.

(Patten & Davies Lbr. Co.

v.

McConville,

219 Cal. 161, 164 [25 P.2d 429].) And where appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the jury the rule is that, ‘ Such contention

requires defendants to demonstrate

that there is no substantial .evidence to support the challenged findings. ’

(Nichols

v.

Mitchell,

32 Cal.2d 598, 600 [197 P.2d 550].) (Emphasis added.) It is said in

Crawford

v.

Southern Pac. Co., 3

Cal.2d 427, 429 [45 P.2d 183], that: 'It is an elementary, but often overlooked principle of law, that when a verdict is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins

[915]

and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uneontradieted, which will support the conclusion reached by the jury. When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.’ ”