Murdock v. Ware (1870) · DecisionDepot

Murdock v. Ware

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

California Supreme Court Oct 27, 1870 No. No. 2583Published

Before: Crockett, Rhodes, Temple, Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment because there was conflicting testimony regarding whether the defendant assumed the plaintiff's contract, and the trial court's finding in favor of the plaintiff will not be disturbed on appeal.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the defendant assumed the contract.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“there being a conflict of testimony, we cannot disturb the judgment.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Tenth Judicial District, Colusa County.

TEMPLE, J. — Upon an examination of the statement on motion for a new trial in this case we find some evidence, both in the testimony of the plaintiff and of Shearer, which tends to prove that Ware assumed the contract made between the plaintiff and Shearer, and agreed with plaintiff to become liable according to its terms. The plaintiff testified that Ware assumed the contract' — plainly implying .that he agreed to perform the contract — which had been made with Shearer. Ware testified to a different state of facts, but upon this point the court found in favor of the plaintiff, and there being a conflict of testimony, we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: Crockett, J.; Rhodes, C. J.; Wallace, J.

Murdock v. Ware

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief