Mazirow v. Ritner
Before: McComb
McCOMB, J. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court in an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell a food market, defendant appeals.
Defendant’s sole contention is that the findings are not supported by the evidence.
This proposition is devoid of merit. The findings and judgment based thereon must be affirmed if there is any substantial evidence in support thereof. (Graves v. Smolicz, 110 Cal.App.2d 221, 225 [3] [242 P.2d 371].)
The power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or otherwise, which will support the findings of the trial court. (McKee v. Mires, 110 Cal.App. 2d 517, 518 [242 P.2d 954].)
Applying the foregoing rules to the findings in the instant case a review of the record discloses the following:
Findings
I
“That the plaintiffs and the defendant, Miriam Bitner, were, at all times mentioned in the pleadings filed in this action, residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.”
This finding is admitted by defendant’s failure to deny it in her answer.
II
“ That by an instrument in writing, which instrument was received in evidence in this action as plaintiff s’ Exhibit 4, plaintiffs did on October 2, 1948, make an offer to the defendant, Miriam Bitner, to purchase the Century Market, located at 6001 South Broadway, Los Angeles, Cali[347]fornia, for the sum of $5,000.00, plus stock at current wholesale prices, and that said offer was communicated by plaintiffs’ representative, Charlotte Haagen, to the defendant, Miriam Bitner, on October 2, 1948.”
This finding is supported by plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4, which contains the terms of the offer made by plaintiffs, together with the alterations which were initialed by all parties plus the testimony of Charlotte Haagen, hereinafter referred to as the broker, that she saw defendant who made the offer to her, let her read it and discussed the proposition with her. She told defendant she held plaintiffs’ check in the sum of $500 as a deposit.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)