Berry v. Ryan

California Court of Appeal

Berry v. Ryan

217 P.2d 1015, 97 Cal. App. 2d 492, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 15, 1950

DocketCiv. 17359

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 217 P.2d 1015 (Berry v. Ryan) 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

Berry v. Ryan, 217 P.2d 1015, 97 Cal. App. 2d 492, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover for money allegedly due under a contract, and against defendant on his cross-complaint seeking to recover money he had paid to plaintiff under a contract, defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Respondent (plaintiff) has not favored this court with a brief.' Appellant (defendant) seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the evidence does not sustain material findings of fact of the trial court. Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant’s brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious. (Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [151 P.2d 887]; Ziegler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [126 P.2d 118]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136, 139 et seq. [128 P.2d 691]. Of., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175,177 [63 P. 176].)

Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial which is a nonappealable order is dismissed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.

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

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover for money allegedly due under a contract, and against defendant on his cross-complaint seeking to recover money he had paid to plaintiff under a contract, defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Respondent (plaintiff) has not favored this court with a brief.' Appellant (defendant) seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the evidence does not sustain material findings of fact of the trial court. Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant’s brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious. (Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [151 P.2d 887]; Ziegler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [126 P.2d 118]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136, 139 et seq. [128 P.2d 691]. Of., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175,177 [63 P. 176].)

Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial which is a nonappealable order is dismissed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 P.2d 1015, 97 Cal. App. 2d 492, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-ryan-calctapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack