Williams v. Hill (1880) · DecisionDepot

Williams v. Hill

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,389Published

Before: Department, Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that it will not disturb a trial court's findings when there is a direct conflict of evidence and the findings are sufficient to support the judgment.

Issues

Whether the appellate court should disturb a judgment based on conflicting testimony regarding a verbal agreement.
Whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment despite the defendant's claim of mistake.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In such case this Court Avill not disturb the judg-ment.”

“The objection that the findings do not support the judgment, in that the Court did not find as to the alleged mistake, is fully answered by the finding of the Court “ that all the facts set forth in the complaint are true; ””

Synopsis

Finding—Mistake.— The complaint alleged that the defendant contracted to a certain effect with the plaintiff and others. The defendant, pleaded that the written contract signed by him did not represent the understanding of the parties, and that he signed it under a mistake, induced by misrepresentations as to its contents by one of the parties, at whose request he signed it. The Court found that all the allegations of the complaint were true. Held, 1st—the evidence being conflicting—that the finding was conclusive upon the question as to whether there was a verbal understanding different from the written agreement; and, 2ndly, That the finding negatived the defense of mistake pleaded in the answer, and sufficiently disposed of that issue.

Department No. 2, Myrick, J.: Plaintiff had judgment; defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and defendant appealed.

On the trial in the Court below, plaintiff Williams testified as to the amount duo plaintiff from defendant on account of advances, and that the agreement signed by defendant, ending the joint adventure, was drawn according to their verbal understanding. ■ Defendant testified that it was not according to their understanding. Here was a direct conflict of evidence. The Court below found in favor of plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly. In such case this Court Avill not disturb the judg-ment.

The objection that the findings do not support the judgment, in that the Court did not find as to the alleged mistake, is fully answered by the finding of the Court “ that all the facts set forth in the complaint are true; ” and by the fourth finding. The facts set forth in the complaint, (transcript, folios 9 to 11) are entirely inconsistent with the mistake alleged in the answer. If the allegations of the complaint are true, there could be no such mistake.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, P. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Williams v. Hill

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief