Roney v. Reynolds
Before: Lorigan
Synopsis
Appeal from Judgment—Time fob Taking.—An appeal from a judgment which is taken more than six months after its entry cannot be considered.
Findings—Conflict of Evidence.—The credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are matters exclusively for the trial court to pass on, and where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence the rule is absolute that a finding evolved from it by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.
Id.—Agreement fob Loan—Finding against Agreement.—In an action to recover damages for the breach of an alleged agreement to make a loan, evidence is reviewed and held sufficient to sustain the finding of the court negativing the making of such agreement.
Id.—Immaterial Findings and Exclusion of Evidence.—In such an action, where the court finds on sufficient evidence that no agreement for a loan was ever made between the parties, there is no possible theory on which the plaintiff could recover, and hence erroneous findings as to other and distinct issues and errors in the rejection of evidence in the matter of damages are without prejudice.
LORIGAN, J.
The complaint in this action alleged that plaintiff, desiring to purchase certain real property in San Francisco of the value of thirty-three thousand dollars, but offered for sale for twenty-six thousand dollars, applied to
[324]
defendant for a loan of ten thousand dollars or fourteen thousand dollars, informing him of the value and location of the property, the price at which it could be obtained, that she could make a large profit by buying it at the price offered, and that the owner required a part payment of five hundred dollars as a forfeiture if her agreement to purchase failed of consummation ; that she informed him also that the option to purchase would extend only a reasonable time; that the defendant agreed to loan her the money at seven per cent interest; that thereupon plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase said property for twenty-six thousand dollars and made the deposit of five hundred dollars forfeit; that she then informed 'defendant of the making of the contract of sale and deposit, and he required her to furnish abstracts of title of certain property which she was to mortgage to him as security for the loan, which she did, at an expenditure of one hundred and thirty-four dollars; that thereafter defendant refused to make the loan, and plaintiff had no time or opportunity during the life of the option to get the money from another source; that the owner forfeited her deposit of five hundred dollars and sold the property to another; that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement, and that defendant refused, without the fault of plaintiff, to make the loan. Damages were claimed in the sum of $14,634. The answer of defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint. Judgment went for the defendant, and this appeal is taken by plaintiff therefrom, and from the order denying her motion for a new trial.
The appeal from the judgment was taken more than six months after its entry, and, hence, was taken too late to have any points urged under it considered.
The motion for a new trial was based upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain certain findings and errors of law claimed to have been made by the court on rulings upon the admissibility of evidence. Our examination of the record satisfied us that but short consideration need be given to any of these points.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)