Chandler v. People's Savings Bank

The Court. — In the above-entitled cause the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, for the reasons given by Department One.

Temple, J., Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., dissented. The following is the opinion of Department One above referred to, rendered on the 17th of September, 1886:— ■

Searls, C. This cause was here in 1882, upon two appeals, one by the plaintiff from part of a judgment in favor of the intervenor, and the other by the intervenor from a part of the judgment in her favor, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

Upon the plaintiff’s appeal, and as to him, the judgment was affirmed. (61 Cal. 396.)

Upon the appeal of the intervenor, it was held that a finding of the court below as to the interest on certain monthly balances in favor of Chandler, from December, 1865, until October, 1878, amounting to $2,710, was not supported by the testimony, and therefore that the finding was erroneous, and the judgment as to the intervenor was reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, according to the views therein expressed. (61 Cal. 401.)

The cause was brought up again in 1884, upon an appeal by the plaintiff, and from the record it appeared that certain evidence offered by the plaintiff, and tending to show that the balances in his favor were of a kind [319]which entitled him to interest thereon, was ruled out; and this court said, in speaking of its former decision:—

“As we understand the judgment in the case, a reversal was ordered because the finding was not sustained by the evidence, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings according to the views expressed in the opinion.

“ Certainly this order of the court left the inquiry as to interest open, as if no trial had been’had on it. The plaintiff was at liberty, in a new trial, if in his power, to show that the' balances were of the kind which bore interest. The offers of the plaintiff, which were ruled out, were made with this view, that is, to show that the balances were of the character which entitled him to have interest on them. (Civ. Code, sec. 1917.) The court should have allowed these offers. In our view, the case was open for a new trial, subject to the views expressed by the court,” etc.; and the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial, subject to the views expressed by this court. (65 Cal. 498.)