Morgan v. McIntyre

California Court of Appeal

Morgan v. McIntyre

299 P. 116, 113 Cal. App. 626, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1049

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 25, 1931

DocketDocket No. 7673.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 P. 116 (Morgan v. McIntyre) 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

Morgan v. McIntyre, 299 P. 116, 113 Cal. App. 626, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Eleanor F. McIntyre asks a reversal of the judgment, canceling a deed from decedent to her for lack of delivery, because of alleged errors in the denial of her motion for a nonsuit and in the admission in evidence of two letters written by decedent after the purported delivery. The facts and circumstances surrounding such delivery are fully set forth in the companion case of Morgan v. Matthieson, 103 Cal. App. 510 [285 Pac. 325], involving the delivery, simultaneously with the present one, of another deed from decedent to another grantee. By presenting evidence after the denial of her motion, appellant changed the question for decision from the correct *627 ness of the ruling on her motion to the sufficiency of the whole evidence to support the judgment. As was pointed out in the above-cited case, in discussing substantially the same evidence, the conflict in the testimony makes the trial court’s determination conclusive. This case also holds that the letters were admissible, not to disparage the deed, but to give light on decedent’s intent as to divesting himself of title.

Upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

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

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Eleanor F. McIntyre asks a reversal of the judgment, canceling a deed from decedent to her for lack of delivery, because of alleged errors in the denial of her motion for a nonsuit and in the admission in evidence of two letters written by decedent after the purported delivery. The facts and circumstances surrounding such delivery are fully set forth in the companion case of Morgan v. Matthieson, 103 Cal. App. 510 [285 Pac. 325], involving the delivery, simultaneously with the present one, of another deed from decedent to another grantee. By presenting evidence after the denial of her motion, appellant changed the question for decision from the correct *627 ness of the ruling on her motion to the sufficiency of the whole evidence to support the judgment. As was pointed out in the above-cited case, in discussing substantially the same evidence, the conflict in the testimony makes the trial court’s determination conclusive. This case also holds that the letters were admissible, not to disparage the deed, but to give light on decedent’s intent as to divesting himself of title.

Upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 P. 116, 113 Cal. App. 626, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-mcintyre-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack