Altieri v. F. B. McKevitt Co.

California Court of Appeal

Altieri v. F. B. McKevitt Co.

5 P.2d 637, 118 Cal. App. 756

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 2, 1931

DocketDocket No. 4405.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 P.2d 637 (Altieri v. F. B. McKevitt Co.) 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

Altieri v. F. B. McKevitt Co., 5 P.2d 637, 118 Cal. App. 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

This is an action brought to recover damages in the sum of $50,000 on account of the alleged destruction of a vineyard growing upon the lands of plaintiff. It was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $10;000. The court granted a new trial, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence, and this appeal is taken from the order granting the new trial.

While in possession of the land of plaintiff, under a crop mortgage, defendant uprooted and removed a number of grape-vines. Among these vines a number of young fruit-trees had been planted. The entire controversy arose over *757 the question as to whether or not it was good husbandry to remove these vines, and whether or not the vines had any value. Upon this matter the evidence is in absolute conflict. For illustration, one witness testified that the vines were old and valueless. On the other hand, plaintiff testified that the 6,000 vines were worth some $6 each.

We have no power to disturb the order appealed from, as there was a conflict upon material issues. We cannot say that a verdict in favor of the moving party would not have sufficient legal support in the evidence adduced at the trial. (Empire Investment Co v. Mort, 169 Cal. 736 [147 Pac. 960].)

The appeal has no semblance of merit. The rule upon appeal in such cases has been reiterated so many times, that it seems almost a waste of time and money for the losing party to proceed beyond the trial court, to which a broad discretion has been committed. A more strict adherence to this rule would go a long way toward relieving the congestion of our appellate courts.

The order is affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Preston, P. J., concurred.

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

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

This is an action brought to recover damages in the sum of $50,000 on account of the alleged destruction of a vineyard growing upon the lands of plaintiff. It was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $10;000. The court granted a new trial, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence, and this appeal is taken from the order granting the new trial.

While in possession of the land of plaintiff, under a crop mortgage, defendant uprooted and removed a number of grape-vines. Among these vines a number of young fruit-trees had been planted. The entire controversy arose over *757 the question as to whether or not it was good husbandry to remove these vines, and whether or not the vines had any value. Upon this matter the evidence is in absolute conflict. For illustration, one witness testified that the vines were old and valueless. On the other hand, plaintiff testified that the 6,000 vines were worth some $6 each.

We have no power to disturb the order appealed from, as there was a conflict upon material issues. We cannot say that a verdict in favor of the moving party would not have sufficient legal support in the evidence adduced at the trial. (Empire Investment Co v. Mort, 169 Cal. 736 [147 Pac. 960].)

The appeal has no semblance of merit. The rule upon appeal in such cases has been reiterated so many times, that it seems almost a waste of time and money for the losing party to proceed beyond the trial court, to which a broad discretion has been committed. A more strict adherence to this rule would go a long way toward relieving the congestion of our appellate courts.

The order is affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Preston, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 P.2d 637, 118 Cal. App. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altieri-v-f-b-mckevitt-co-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack