Beanes v. State Plumbing Supply Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Beanes v. State Plumbing Supply Corp.

60 P.2d 321, 16 Cal. App. 2d 298, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 274

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 27, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 11062

StatusPublished

This text of 60 P.2d 321 (Beanes v. State Plumbing Supply Corp.) 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

Beanes v. State Plumbing Supply Corp., 60 P.2d 321, 16 Cal. App. 2d 298, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Jurors found in favor of defendants and against plaintiff in the latter’s action for damages for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and defendants prosecute this appeal from such order.

Where there is conflicting evidence it is within the discretion of the trial court to grant a new trial; and if such conflict in the evidence appears it is not the province of an appellate tribunal to disturb the order so made. (Francis v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 9 Cal. App. (2d) 278 [49 Pac. (2d) 313].) It is true that the conflict in the evidence must be real and substantial (Gackstetter v. Market Street Ry. Co., 104 Cal. App. 89 [285 Pac. 409]), but in the record of this case such real and substantial conflict is disclosed, affording ample basis to sustain the trial court in its order. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed review of such evidence.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

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

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Jurors found in favor of defendants and against plaintiff in the latter’s action for damages for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and defendants prosecute this appeal from such order.

Where there is conflicting evidence it is within the discretion of the trial court to grant a new trial; and if such conflict in the evidence appears it is not the province of an appellate tribunal to disturb the order so made. (Francis v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 9 Cal. App. (2d) 278 [49 Pac. (2d) 313].) It is true that the conflict in the evidence must be real and substantial (Gackstetter v. Market Street Ry. Co., 104 Cal. App. 89 [285 Pac. 409]), but in the record of this case such real and substantial conflict is disclosed, affording ample basis to sustain the trial court in its order. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed review of such evidence.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 P.2d 321, 16 Cal. App. 2d 298, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beanes-v-state-plumbing-supply-corp-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack