Brovelli v. Bianchi

69 P. 416, 136 Cal. 612, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 769
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1902
DocketS.F. No. 2087.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 69 P. 416 (Brovelli v. Bianchi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brovelli v. Bianchi, 69 P. 416, 136 Cal. 612, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 769 (Cal. 1902).

Opinion

*613 COOPER, C.

This action was brought to recover $367.35, the agreed price for wine sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at his instance and request. The case was tried before the court, without a jury, findings filed, and judgment thereupon entered for plaintiff as prayed. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial. The first point made is, that the evidence does not sustain the findings. The evidence is not pointed out in the- brief of appellant, and no suggestion made as to the respects wherein the evidence fails to support the findings or any finding. In such case we will not endeavor to discover the respects wherein the evidence -is insufficient, but will presume that it supports every material finding of fact.

The claim is further made that the court failed to find upon the affirmative allegations of defendant’s answer as to rescission and counterclaim.

The court found that none of the allegations of defendant’s answer and cross-complaint are true. This was sufficient. (Williams v. Hall, 79 Cal. 607.)

We advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Gray, C., and Smith, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., Temple, J.

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

Related

Koster v. County of San Joaquin
47 Cal. App. 4th 29 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)
Devers v. Greenwood
293 P.2d 834 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Kruckow v. Lesser
244 P.2d 19 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Rinker v. McKinley
149 P.2d 859 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Burr v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
133 P.2d 24 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Peal v. Gulf Red Cedar Co.
59 P.2d 183 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Van Lee Hood v. Verdugo Lumber Co.
15 P.2d 542 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irrigation District
296 P. 1088 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Mercantile Trust Co. of California v. Reay
274 P. 401 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
First National Bank v. De Moulin
205 P. 92 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Robben v. Benson
185 P. 200 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Tait v. McInnes
84 P. 674 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Whitney v. Dewey
69 L.R.A. 572 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 P. 416, 136 Cal. 612, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brovelli-v-bianchi-cal-1902.