Monson v. Fischer

California Court of Appeal

Monson v. Fischer

289 P. 899, 107 Cal. App. 55, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 230

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7457.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 P. 899 (Monson v. Fischer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monson v. Fischer, 289 P. 899, 107 Cal. App. 55, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant has filed an application in this court for an order to take additional evidence upon issues as to which the findings of the trial court were against her.

The motion is based on the provisions of section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure. The purpose of the section, in conferring upon appellate courts the power to take additional evidence, is “that wherever possible causes may be finally disposed of by a single appeal and without further proceedings in the trial court, except where the interest of justice requires a new trial.”

The testimony upon which the findings were based was conflicting and the object of appellant is tj procure the making of findings contrary to those of the trial court in order that its judgment may be reversed. As held in the following eases this is not the purpose of the section: Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256 [280 Pac. 970], Estate of Wirt, 207 Cal. 106 [277 Pac. 118], First Nat. Bank of Findlay v. Terry, 103 Cal. App. 501 [285 Pac. 336], and the application is accordingly denied .

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

THE COURT.

Appellant has filed an application in this court for an order to take additional evidence upon issues as to which the findings of the trial court were against her.

The motion is based on the provisions of section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure. The purpose of the section, in conferring upon appellate courts the power to take additional evidence, is “that wherever possible causes may be finally disposed of by a single appeal and without further proceedings in the trial court, except where the interest of justice requires a new trial.”

The testimony upon which the findings were based was conflicting and the object of appellant is tj procure the making of findings contrary to those of the trial court in order that its judgment may be reversed. As held in the following eases this is not the purpose of the section: Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256 [280 Pac. 970], Estate of Wirt, 207 Cal. 106 [277 Pac. 118], First Nat. Bank of Findlay v. Terry, 103 Cal. App. 501 [285 Pac. 336], and the application is accordingly denied .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 P. 899, 107 Cal. App. 55, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monson-v-fischer-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack