Hoppe v. Robb

1 Cal. 373
California Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1851·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

BeNNett, J.

The action was for money loaned. The question for determination at the trial was whether the money was advanced as a loan, or by way of subscription for the purpose of establishing a newspaper at San José. There was conflicting evidence upon this point, and the judge of the district court found that the money was advanced as a subscription.

[374] "We bare frequently held that we would not review the verdict of a jury upon a question of fact, where there was conflicting or contradictory evidence, upon which the verdict was based. The same rule applies to the finding of a judge, to whom a question of fact is submitted, and upon which he has passed. The j udgme-nt in this cause must, therefore, be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Hoppe v. Robb, 1 Cal. 373 (Cal. 1851).

1 Cal. 373 (Hoppe v. Robb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sears v. Schwartz
142 P.2d 334 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
McGrath v. Basich Brothers Construction Co.
46 P.2d 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Rolland v. Porterfield
191 P. 913 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Bernard v. Raglan
1 Cal. Unrep. 17 (California Supreme Court, 1856)