Tench v. McMeekan
Before: Hall
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. Wm. H. Waste, Judge.
The main facts are stated in the opinion in Tench v. Mc-Meekan, ante, p. 14. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court in this case.
HALL, J.
These are appeals from a judgment against Eliza McMeekan and the order denying her motion for a new trial, and are presented in one transcript.
The action grows out of the same general state of facts as were involved in the case of
Elizabeth Tench
v.
Eliza McMeekan
(No. 877),
ante,
p. 14, [118 Pac. 476], the appeals in which were this day decided by this court.
The present action was brought to recover .the balance remaining of the money referred to in the opinion filed in the other action.
Isadora Brandt and her husband F. W. Brandt were made parties because the name of Isadora Brandt had been joined with that of appellant as depositor of the fund sued for, but as her name was subsequently removed from the account, no judgment was taken against her or her husband.
The facts concerning the transfer of both the money and the land are set forth in the complaint in this action substan
[24]
tially as in the other, and the allegations of the complaint are supported by the same evidence.
The court made similar findings in this case as in the one to recover the land, and similar attacks are made upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion in the other case we think these attacks are not well founded.
In disposing of this case we do not deem it necessary to restate in detail the facts disclosed by the record. They are quite fully stated in the opinion filed to-day in the case involving the land, to which reference may be made for a complete understanding of the facts.
The complaint in this case was framed upon the theory that the assignment made by John Tench to Temperance Tench, of the money which he had on deposit in the bank, was in trust during their joint lives, to’be used for their joint support, and that said Temperance was to acquire no interest in said money until the death of John Tench. That such interpretation of the assignment was justified by what was said and done in connection with the making of the assignment, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, we have no doubt.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)