Allan-Macmaster Co. v. Exterstein

PARKER, J.,

pro

tem.

This action was prosecuted by plaintiff against appellant in her proper person and also as the executrix of the last will and testament of H. J. Exterstein, deceased. The purpose of the action was to have restored to the estate of said decedent certain assets out of which to pay debts of the estate. Judgment was for plaintiff and this appeal follows.

The grounds upon which appellant urges a reversal include the sufficiency of the evidence.

The property sought to be restored to decedent’s estate consists entirely of the shares of stock of certain corporations. The trial court found that the said stock was placed in the name of decedent’s wife, appellant herein, at a time when decedent was insolvent and deeply indebted, with numerous unsatisfied judgments standing against him and that no consideration was paid by the wife. Further it was expressly found that the entire scheme of transfer was for the purpose of and with the intent to defraud creditors, existent and subsequent.

The appeal is presented in a more or less general argument with random references and disputatious conclusions on the case as a whole. The conclusions made lack definiteness and are, as respondent claims, in the nature of an argument to a trial court or jury.

We have, however, gone carefully through the record and the transcript and find sufficient to sustain the trial court’s holding. It was said in

Federal Const. Co.

v.

Brady,

122 Cal. App. 446 [10 Pac. (2d) 130, 131]:

“We

might take the ease before us, and step by step, analyze each fact presented and each argument made and we would end exactly where we began. We would still have a situation where a trial judge, with the additional advantage of having

[759]

observed the witnesses, determined the disputed fact with, substantial evidence to support his finding.”