Crawford v. Marysville Fuel Co.

California Court of Appeal May 25, 1939 No. Civ. 6068Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, as there was substantial testimony indicating the presence of naphthalene in the rice did not cause the death or illness of the plaintiff's turkeys.

Issues

Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the plaintiff suffered no damages from the feed purchased from the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is only necessary to consider that testimony which, if believed by the trial court, would support the judgment.”

“From the foregoing brief summary it is clear the evidence is sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the defendant”

PULLEN, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages suffered as the result of plaintiff having fed his turkeys paddy rice purchased from defendant, as turkey feed, it being alleged that the paddy rice contained naphthalene in the form of moth balls, and that as a result of the feeding of said rice many of plaintiff’s turkeys were poisoned and died, and the remainder of the flock lost weight and otherwise deteriorated.

The court rendered judgment in favor of defendant, and from that judgment this appeal is taken.

The appellant’s principal contention is that the evidence does not support the finding that plaintiff has not been damaged in any sum by reason of the feeding of said rice purchased from defendant.

It must be remembered that an appellate court in examining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a questioned finding must accept as true all evidence tending to establish the correctness of the finding as made, considering also all inferences which might reasonably have led the court to the same conclusion. It is also necessary that every substantial conflict in the testimony be resolved in favor of the questioned finding. In examining the record, therefore, it is our duty to weigh that testimony which, if accepted by the trial court, will logically lead to the conclusion that the presence of moth balls or naphthalene did not make the rice unmerchantable and unfit to be used for feed for turkeys. It is only necessary to consider that testimony which, if believed by the trial court, would support the judgment.

(McHugh

Bancroft-Whitney Co.,

166 Cal. 140 [134 Pac. 1157].)

The complaint alleges, briefly, that defendant at all times mentioned was engaged in the feed business, and that plaintiff was engaged in the business of turkey raising, and was the owner of some 2,680 tom turkeys and 215 hen turkeys, which were being prepared for the market. That on the 4th day of February, 1936, plaintiff purchased from defendant some two tons of paddy rice for turkey feed, and

[75]

Crawford v. Marysville Fuel Co.

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief