Winzeler v. Castorina

McCOMB, J.

This appeal, transferred from the Supreme Court to this court for decision pursuant to the provisions of article VI, section 4c of the Constitution of the State of California, is from a decree of the Superior Court granting the petition of respondent for the admission of decedent’s will to probate as an original will, upon the ground that decedent was a resident of Los Angeles County at the time of his death, and also from the decree denying the petition of appellant for probate of decedent’s will as a foreign will.

These are the sole questions necessary for us to determine:

First: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding “that decedent [Henry S. Winzeler] was at the time of his death a resident of the county of Los Angeles, State of California”?

Second: Did the trial court err in making a finding as to the residence of decedent, Henry S. Winzeler, at the time of his death?

[248]

The first question must be answered in the affirmative and is controlled by the following pertinent rules of law:

(1) In reviewing the evidence on appeal from a judgment on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of fact, all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged in support of the finding (Raggio v. Mallory,

10

Cal. (2d) 723, 725 [76 Pac. (2d) 660]).

(2) When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the appellate court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court (Bellon v.

Silver Gate Theatres, Inc.,

4 Cal. (2d) 1, 14 [47 Pac. (2d) 462]).

(3) Direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient to prove any fact except perjury or treason and is necessarily sufficient to create a substantial conflict in evidence regardless of inferences supporting testimony to the contrary (Estate

of Filippi,