Crawford v. Meadows

THOMAS, J.

This is an action in claim and delivery. Plaintiff alleged ownership of a certain automobile and the right of possession thereof in himself. This was denied by defendant. After trial judgment went for defendant. From that judgment plaintiff appeals.

Appellant claims that “the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision,” and that “the findings of fact do not justify the conclusions reached.” The last contention need not he considered if the first is established. Primarily, at least, therefore, there is only one point made, viz.: Insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

[1]

Counsel admit and recognize the rule that when there is any evidence to support the findings that this court will not disturb the judgment thereon. In this case, however, there is no conflict in the evidence as to the ownership and the right of possession to the said automobile at the time this action was commenced. Plaintiff’s testimony shows clearly the ownership of the property and the right of possession thereof in himself at the time this action was commenced. Respondent has not pointed out to ns any testimony which in the least conflicts therewith. Lest, however, an injustice might he done by respondent’s failure to' point out such testimony, if the record contained it, every member of this court has, regardless of ^he rule which makes such labor on our part unnecessary, read the entire record. It wholly fails to disclose- anything derogatory to plaintiff’s proven ownership and right of possession.

[15]

[2]

It was stipulated that plaintiff was the owner of the automobile in question on the seventeenth day of June, 1914. Plaintiff also testified, among other things, as follows: “At the time this lease contract was signed, which bears date July 22d, the ear belonged to me. It also belonged to me when it was changed from one hundred dollars to eight hundred dollars in September, 1914. At the time the lease contract was changed in September I had not received the purchase price. ’ ’ There is absolutely nothing in the record which contradicts this, or which is in any way in conflict therewith.

We are satisfied that the findings are not supported by the evidence. In view of that fact, therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss the second proposition referred to above.