Landegren v. Quilici

PETERS, P. J.

This appeal approaches the frivolous. It is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of entered in an action brought for damages for an alleged assault and battery. The trial court found that it was not true that defendant assaulted plaintiff without cause; that it was true that plaintiff wilfully and maliciously defendant in a menacing and assaulting manner; that it is true that defendant, believing himself to be in danger of great bodily harm, defended himself against the assault of plaintiff and used only such force as was reasonably

[214]

necessary for Ms protection and defense. Appellant’s sole contention is that these findings are unsupported by the evidence. A reading of the transcript demonstrates that these findings find ample support in the record.

The proper rule to be applied to such an appeal was stated as follows in

Crawford

v.

Southern Pacific Co.,

3 Cal. (2d) 427, 429 [45 P. (2d) 183] : “In reviewing the evidence on such an appeal all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent, and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict if possible. 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 and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, 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. (Treadwell v.

Nickel,

194 Cal. 243 [228 Pac. 25] ;

Bancroft-Whitney Co.

v.

McHugh,

166 Cal. 140 [134 Pac. 1157];

Wing v. Kishi,