Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

California Supreme Court

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

36 P. 947, 4 Cal. Unrep. 664, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1216

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1894

DocketNo. 15,357

StatusPublished

This text of 36 P. 947 (Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald) 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

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 36 P. 947, 4 Cal. Unrep. 664, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1216 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The [665]*665appeal from the judgment, not having been taken within the statutory time, must be dismissed. The only question presented on the appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial is this: Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the facts found by the court? The facts found were these: “First. Walter Fitzgerald, deceased, did not in his lifetime enter into any agreement or have any understanding with the defendants, or either or any of them, that they would enter into a copartnership of any character. Second. No copartnership business was in fact entered upon or conducted by the said defendants, or either or any of them, with or for the said Walter Fitzgerald in his lifetime.” We have thoroughly examined the evidence, and we think it fully sufficient to support said findings. A detailed statement here of the testimony as disclosed in the transcript would serve no useful purpose. ■The appeal from the judgment is dismissed, and the order denying the motion for a new trial'is affirmed.

We concur: Fitzgerald, J.; De Haven, J.

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

McFARLAND, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The [665]*665appeal from the judgment, not having been taken within the statutory time, must be dismissed. The only question presented on the appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial is this: Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the facts found by the court? The facts found were these: “First. Walter Fitzgerald, deceased, did not in his lifetime enter into any agreement or have any understanding with the defendants, or either or any of them, that they would enter into a copartnership of any character. Second. No copartnership business was in fact entered upon or conducted by the said defendants, or either or any of them, with or for the said Walter Fitzgerald in his lifetime.” We have thoroughly examined the evidence, and we think it fully sufficient to support said findings. A detailed statement here of the testimony as disclosed in the transcript would serve no useful purpose. ■The appeal from the judgment is dismissed, and the order denying the motion for a new trial'is affirmed.

We concur: Fitzgerald, J.; De Haven, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 P. 947, 4 Cal. Unrep. 664, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-fitzgerald-cal-1894.