Wendt v. Gates

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action in ejectment against the defendants. The defendants answered and a trial was had before the court without a jury. The court made findings of fact in favor of the defendants, and from a judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed and has brought up typewritten transcripts.

In findings one and two the trial court found that the defendants were the owners and that the plaintiff had no interest in the property involved. The plaintiff contends that the findings were conclusions. In his brief he does not set forth any of the evidence supporting his contention. Whether the findings mentioned are or are not conclusions depends on the nature of the evidence. In

Levins

v.

Rovengo,

71 Cal. 273 [12 Pac. 161], the court was considering the same attack in an action of ejectment. At page 278 of

[344]

71 Cal.,

supra,

the court said: “If, from the facts in evidence, the result can be reached by that process of natural reasoning adopted in the investigation of truth, it becomes an ultimate fact, to be found as such. If, on the other hand, resort must be had to the artificial processes of the law, in order to reach a final determination, the result is a conclusion of law.” From all that is set forth in plaintiff’s brief we cannot say that the findings were conclusions.

In the next place the plaintiff contends that finding number three, which is on the subject of adverse possession, is contrary to the evidence. In his brief he quotes no evidence and does not even cite the reporter’s transcript.

Finding number four was in response to an. allegation pleading a judgment in bar. The plaintiff asserts that his vendor was not served with process and made no appearance in the former action and therefore this plaintiff is not barred by the judgment. On the trial of the instant case the judgment-roll in an action foreclosing a mortgage,