Hecker v. Morley

California Supreme Court

Hecker v. Morley

148 P. 516, 170 Cal. 88, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 361

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 1915

DocketL.A. No. 3476.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 P. 516 (Hecker v. Morley) 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

Hecker v. Morley, 148 P. 516, 170 Cal. 88, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 361 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring.

This was an action by a creditor of Miles Morley to set aside a conveyance of property by Miles Morley to James-Morley, on the ground that the conveyance was- made to defraud the plaintiff as a creditor of Miles Morley. The court found that there was no intent to defraud and that there was a valuable consideration and upon those findings gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff on his appeal makes the point, and this is the only point, that the evidence is not- sufficient to sustain the findings.

The only question being whether or not the findings are sustained by the evidence, the decision must go upon the familiar ground that an appellate court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial court where there is substantial evidence to sustain it. There is sufficient evidence here to support the findings of the court below. It is useless to recapituate the evidence or state the reasons upon which the conclusions of the court may be upheld.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring.

This was an action by a creditor of Miles Morley to set aside a conveyance of property by Miles Morley to James-Morley, on the ground that the conveyance was- made to defraud the plaintiff as a creditor of Miles Morley. The court found that there was no intent to defraud and that there was a valuable consideration and upon those findings gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff on his appeal makes the point, and this is the only point, that the evidence is not- sufficient to sustain the findings.

The only question being whether or not the findings are sustained by the evidence, the decision must go upon the familiar ground that an appellate court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial court where there is substantial evidence to sustain it. There is sufficient evidence here to support the findings of the court below. It is useless to recapituate the evidence or state the reasons upon which the conclusions of the court may be upheld.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 P. 516, 170 Cal. 88, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hecker-v-morley-cal-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack