Williams v. Genoway

WOOD (Parker), Acting P. J. Action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff as an employee of defendant. In a nonjury trial, judgment was for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

Appellant contends that the evidence was sufficient to entitle her to a judgment against defendant. She argues that the evidence shows that she rendered extra services for defendant, that he agreed to pay for such services, and that she has not been paid. She also states that the testimony is “indicative by a preponderance” that the parties had a special agreement as to extra pay, and that defendant intended to pay for extra time over 40 hours a week. In other words, it seems to be appellant’s position that the trial court should have weighed the evidence and determined the credibility of the witnesses in favor of appellant.

It is not a function of an appellate court to consider the relative weight of conflicting evidence, but it is a function of such court to consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. (Dell v. Hjorth, 51 Cal.App.2d 576, 578 [125 P.2d 505].) Where there is a question on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the power of the appellate court “begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence to support” the findings. (See Overton v. Vita-Food Corp., 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370 [210 P.2d 757].)

Plaintiff rendered services, as a bookbinder, for defendant from May, 1945, to November, 1952, and during that time defendant paid her a weekly salary. Commencing in 1950, defendant paid her, in addition to her salary, a percentage of the gross income of the business. The total yearly payments [63]to her, for the respective years from January, 1946, to November, 1952, were as follows: $1,380; $1,920; $2,080; $2,800; $4,728; $5,639.81; $5,670.12.

In April, 1953, this plaintiff commenced another action against the defendant herein, and she alleged therein that she and this defendant were partners in said business. In that action the court found that the parties were not partners. The judgment therein, for defendant, was entered in April, 1954.

The present action was commenced in May, 1954, to recover the difference between the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services and the amount she had been paid. In this action plaintiff sought additional compensation for services rendered from January, 1946, to November, 1952. (At the trial plaintiff abandoned her claim for additional compensation for 1951 and 1952.)