Allen v. Ellis

California Court of Appeal

Allen v. Ellis

250 P. 699, 79 Cal. App. 611, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 95

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 4, 1926

DocketDocket No. 4496.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 P. 699 (Allen v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Ellis, 250 P. 699, 79 Cal. App. 611, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 95 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

There was an outstanding account of plaintiff against the defendant for services rendered. • 'Plaintiff testified that he had rendered a statement showing a balance due in the sum of $1,409.46; that the defendant brought the account to him and claimed that the amount was too large; that the plaintiff then offered to reduce the amount to .$1,35.0;.that the defendant then said: “All right., we will settle”; that thereupon the defendant, gave plaintiff a check for- $500, which .was ■ credited on the statement of account, and at the same time gave credit for $59.46; that the defendant said: “I will pay you the balance in two or three weeks. ’ ’

*612 The only point raised by the appeal is that the evidence is. insufficient to support the court’s finding that there was an account stated, and that the defendant agreed to pay the same. In view of the fact that there is direct and sufficient evidence of these facts, the finding must be sustained, notwithstanding that there was opposing testimony of the defendant and others relating to those issues.

It appearing that the appeal was made for delay, the judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that respondent recover from appellant the sum of $50 damages in addition to the costs of appeal.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CONREY, P. J.

There was an outstanding account of plaintiff against the defendant for services rendered. • 'Plaintiff testified that he had rendered a statement showing a balance due in the sum of $1,409.46; that the defendant brought the account to him and claimed that the amount was too large; that the plaintiff then offered to reduce the amount to .$1,35.0;.that the defendant then said: “All right., we will settle”; that thereupon the defendant, gave plaintiff a check for- $500, which .was ■ credited on the statement of account, and at the same time gave credit for $59.46; that the defendant said: “I will pay you the balance in two or three weeks. ’ ’

*612 The only point raised by the appeal is that the evidence is. insufficient to support the court’s finding that there was an account stated, and that the defendant agreed to pay the same. In view of the fact that there is direct and sufficient evidence of these facts, the finding must be sustained, notwithstanding that there was opposing testimony of the defendant and others relating to those issues.

It appearing that the appeal was made for delay, the judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that respondent recover from appellant the sum of $50 damages in addition to the costs of appeal.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 P. 699, 79 Cal. App. 611, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-ellis-calctapp-1926.