Cross v. Reed

California Supreme Court

Cross v. Reed

29 P. 244, 3 Cal. Unrep. 484

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1892

DocketNo. 14,522

StatusPublished

This text of 29 P. 244 (Cross v. Reed) 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

Cross v. Reed, 29 P. 244, 3 Cal. Unrep. 484 (Cal. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, C.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order refusing a new trial, and the only ground urged for a reversal is that some of the material findings were not justified by the evidence. The action was brought to recover the sum of $8,000, with interest, and it was alleged that the money was furnished by plaintiff to defendant for investment on plaintiff’s account in real property, and invested by defendant in a manner which was unauthorized and fraudulent. The plaintiff and defendant were the principal witnesses at the trial, and their testimony upon the material issues was substantially conflicting. No brief has been filed on behalf of respondent, but, after carefully reading all the evidence brought up in the record, we think it must be held, under the well-settled rule of this court, that the action of the trial court cannot be disturbed for the reason urged. We therefore advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

We concur: Temple, C.; Yanclief, C.

PER

CURIAM.—Por the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

BELCHER, C.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order refusing a new trial, and the only ground urged for a reversal is that some of the material findings were not justified by the evidence. The action was brought to recover the sum of $8,000, with interest, and it was alleged that the money was furnished by plaintiff to defendant for investment on plaintiff’s account in real property, and invested by defendant in a manner which was unauthorized and fraudulent. The plaintiff and defendant were the principal witnesses at the trial, and their testimony upon the material issues was substantially conflicting. No brief has been filed on behalf of respondent, but, after carefully reading all the evidence brought up in the record, we think it must be held, under the well-settled rule of this court, that the action of the trial court cannot be disturbed for the reason urged. We therefore advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

We concur: Temple, C.; Yanclief, C.

PER

CURIAM.—Por the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P. 244, 3 Cal. Unrep. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-reed-cal-1892.