Anglo American Land Co. v. Heine (1921) · DecisionDepot

Anglo American Land Co. v. Heine

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 3, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3734.Published

Before: Waste

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony, the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by evidence, and that the evidence supported the finding that the promissory note had been paid and discharged.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the promissory note had been paid and discharged.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the amount actually due on the note to explain the terms of a deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WASTE, P. J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendants, husband and wife, the sum of six thousand dollars, alleged to be due as a deficiency after sale of real property under a deed of trust given to secure a promissory note. The trial court held that the note had been paid, satisfied, and discharged, and gave judgment for the defendants; from which the plaintiff appeals. Insufficiency of the evidence to support the above finding of the court, and errors in admitting evidence, are the grounds relied upon to secure a reversal of the judgment.

In presenting the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s finding that the promissory note, on which was based the right of the plaintiff to recover, had been paid, satisfied, and discharged on May 28, 1914, counsel for the respective parties have each presented a careful analysis of the testimony. These discussions only serve to emphasize what clearly appears from the record, that there is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of the two real parties to the action. It was the province of the trial court, under such circumstances, to accept the evidence of one or the other as true, and if satisfied therewith, to. decide the issues in the light of such testimony. In doing so it was proper for the court to indulge the legitimate inference and deduction arising from the testimony in arriving at a proper understanding of the facts it considered directly proved.

(Maxson

v. Llewellyn, 122 Cal. 195, 198, [54 Pac. 732].)

[1]

When there is evidence in the record which, if believed and accepted as true by the trial court, is sufficient to support its findings and judgment, the appellate court cannot disregard the lower court’s decision and reverse the judgment on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. And this is so even though the appellate court may be of the opinion that the weight of the evidence is against the finding.

(Lewis

Covillaud,

21 Cal. 179, 190.) The motives which may have impelled the parties to tes

[474]

Related research

compensation, all over that sum that might be obtained. As a matter of fact Wright bought the property at the price mentioned for one of his companies. Defendant Heine testified that it was agreed between Wright and himself, as a part of the transaction, that the seven thousand five hundred dollar note, executed by himself and wife, was to be paid off immediately, and that he was to be relieved of any future financial responsibility in reference to the encumbrances on the property, of which there were three, including the Wright deed of trust securing that note. While Wright strenuously denied that there was any such agreement, certain features of the transaction brought out by the evidence tend to support the defendant’s contention and, no doubt, had the serious consideration of the trial court. When the deed passed from the defendants to Eowley under the agreement with Wright it contained a stipulation that the conveyance was “subject to an indebtedness of thirty-four thousand dollars.” The indebtedness on the property at. that time included the trust deed to Murdoch, eighteen thousand dollars; the trust deed to one Unna, nine thousand dollars, and the trust deed, to Wright & Sons, now claimed by Wright to have amounted to seven thousand dollars at that time, the total aggregating thirty-four thousand dollars. The trial court found, however, that the defendants were only indebted to Wright, or to his companies, at that time in the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars. Taking the determination of the trial court in that regard, the aggregate indebtedness on the property was but thirty-one thousand five hundred dollars. This amount subtracted from the net selling price of fifty-six thousand dollars, leaves remaining twenty-four thousand five hundred dollars due to the defendants. The significant fact appears that that is the exact sum for which Wright & Company accounted to the defendants in closing and settling the transaction. We cannot but think this fact sheds much light upon the position of the parties,v and tends strongly to corroborate the contention of the defendants, and to support the finding of the trial court to the effect that the note of the defendants was in fact paid and discharged.

AI Brief

Synopsis

WASTE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief