Godfrey v. Godfrey

CRAIG, J.

The pleadings and the evidence in this case show that the plaintiff, had an adopted son named John Phillips Godfrey and that he and the defendant in this action intermarried on or about February 3, 1922; that the plaintiff then resided at her home on Western Avenue, in the city of Los Angeles; that shortly after their marriage John Phillips Godfrey and his wife removed from a hotel to a residence which they had established at Beverly Hills, in Los Angeles County; that the furniture and furnishings, which were the property of the plaintiff, were placed in the Beverly Hills home of the plaintiff’s adopted son and his wife; that Godfrey and wife thereafter purchased additional furniture from various merchants in the city of Los Angeles,

[206]

with whom accounts were opened by Godfrey and for a large portion of which purchases the plaintiff: was compelled to pay. On June 17, 1922, the plaintiff brought this action in claim and delivery, alleging ownership of all the furniture and furnishings, that the defendant claimed to be the owner thereof, that prior to said last-mentioned date John Phillips Godfrey, acting as the agent for plaintiff, demanded possession of said personal property, and praying judgment that it be “redelivered” to the plaintiff, or that she have damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. The defendant answered, denying each of the material allegations of the complaint, and the ease was tried before the superior court without a jury, whereupon the plaintiff was awarded judgment for possession of the property which had been removed from the Western Avenue residence, and denied judgment for the furniture and furnishings which were purchased by the defendant and her husband as above mentioned, from which judgment each of the parties appealed.

Plaintiff contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment rendered against her, but we think this claim is untenable, since there were several witnesses who testified for each of the parties, and the evidence is sharply conflicting. There is no dispute of the fact that the Western Avenue furniture was the property of the plaintiff, but the defendant insisted at the trial, and argued upon appeal, that it was given to her. The defendant and her minor daughter, of the age of about eleven years, testified that the plaintiff stated to them and at various times in their presence that she had made them a present of her furniture in view of the fact that she expected to make her home with her adopted son and the defendant. The plaintiff emphatically denied that such conversation had ever occurred; that she had had much of the furniture for many years, some of which consisted of heirlooms, and that she did not intend to, and in fact had said that she would not, part with title to the property, but merely loaned it to the younger people for their temporary use. It was admitted that the plaintiff did not execute or deliver to the defendant a bill of sale to the furniture. Upon the record thus presented the trial court may well have believed that title did not pass to the defendant to the property of her mother-in-law, and where a judgment is rendered upon conflicting evidence it will not