Shepherd v. Perea

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 1950 No. Civ. No. 17391Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant must be affirmed because there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the defendant did not agree to pay for the plaintiffs' services. The court further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when the trier of fact determines that no implied promise to pay exists.

Issues

Whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding the defendant's liability for services performed.
Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment requires payment for services when the trier of fact finds no implied promise to pay.
Whether the trial court's evidentiary rulings constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was the province of the trial court to determine the weight, value and effect of the testimony. Having so determined, the only inquiry to be made by a reviewing court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings”

“Under the facts of this case, the rule of unjust enrichment does not apply.”

“the implied promise is a question of fact, and a determination by the trier of fact that there was no such promise will be supported on appeal.”

98 Cal.App.2d 518 (1950) W. W. SHEPHERD et al., Appellants,

JOE PEREA, Respondent.

Civ. No. 17391. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. One.

July 21, 1950. William K. Young for Appellants.

Charles E. Hobart for Respondent.

DRAPEAU, J.

[1] Defendant purchased a caterpillar tractor from International Machinery Company. The tractor was guaranteed to be 85 per cent efficient, under O.P.A. regulations. But defendant found that the engine would not run. He notified International Machinery Company, and that company asked plaintiffs to see what was wrong.

One of plaintiffs' mechanics attempted to fix the engine in the field, without success. The engine was pulled out of the tractor, shipped from Lancaster to plaintiffs' machine shop in Los Angeles, and overhauled. It was then sent back to Lancaster and installed in the tractor. The cost of the work was $2,008.38.

Thereafter defendant used the tractor for more than a year, leveling land in the Antelope valley, and sold it for a good price. During this time plaintiffs did other work on the tractor, and defendant paid their bills for this service.

The testimony is in conflict as to who authorized the work on the engine to be done, and who agreed to pay for it. Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that defendant did. Defendant denied that he did. He testified that at all times he specifically told plaintiffs' representatives that the tractor was guaranteed by International Machinery Company and that any work on the engine was to be paid for by them.

Invoices were made to International Machinery Company for the work; bills were mailed to the same company. Then [520] plaintiffs billed defendant, demanded payment from him, and finally sued him for the work, labor, and services performed. The trial court found for the defendant, judgment followed, and appeal was taken.

Applying elementary rules on appeal, the judgment must stand. It was the province of the trial court to determine the weight, value and effect of the testimony. Having so determined, the only inquiry to be made by a reviewing court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and judgment. (Jordan v. Guerra, 23 Cal.2d 469 [144 P.2d 349]; Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 777 [163 P.2d 756].)

Shepherd v. Perea

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief