Tashjian v. Krikorian

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against him in an action to recover commissions

[161]

alleged to be due him upon a written contract with the defendant for the sale of defendant’s real property in Fresno County.

The trial court found that neither during the term of the agreement between the parties nor thereafter did the plaintiff find a purchaser for the property who was ready, willing, and able or ready, or willing and able to purchase said premises according to the terms of said agreement.

[1]

There is only one question presented' to us upon appeal, and that is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain this finding.

While this court is, necessarily, always bound by the findings of a trial court in a case where the evidence is conflicting, there are, nevertheless, certain types of cases in which this rule is more peculiarly efficacious than in others. The record here presents such a case. Almost all the witnesses, including the parties to the action, struggled to express themselves in a language which was unfamiliar to them. This difficulty, added to their apparent confusion when called upon to remember and state accurately and precisely important matters, leaves the printed pages rather meaningless and contradictory in many instances. It is in such situations that the trial judge is able and empowered to use his broad experience with witnesses and his observation of their manner upon the stand, and the innumerable other intangible things which throw light upon the testimony of a witness, in order to clarify vague and uncertain statements, to reconcile contradictions, and explain inconsistencies. Without such aids, it would be difficult indeed to arrive at the facts in records such as the one before us upon this appeal.

We are bound to assume that all statements appearing in the record, or matters reasonably inferable therefrom, which support the finding of the trial court are true, and that statements in conflict therewith are not true. In the light of such an assumption, we have this picture: Plaintiff is a real estate dealer, and through his agency, the defendant has purchased a vineyard, the subject of this controversy. Before said purchase was completed, it was suggested that plaintiff resell the vineyard for the defendant at a price in excess of the amount' he had paid for it. Such an agreement was entered into between the parties,