Ness v. Timm

California Court of Appeal

Ness v. Timm

13 P.2d 844, 125 Cal. App. 135, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 550

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 28, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8034.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 P.2d 844 (Ness v. Timm) 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

Ness v. Timm, 13 P.2d 844, 125 Cal. App. 135, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to recover money alleged to have been paid to the defendants through fraud and deceit. He had judgment for $2,503.10 and the defendant Jespersen alone has appealed.

The complaint alleged that the money was paid upon the defendants’ representations that they would organize a corporation for the manufacture and sale of candy and give plaintiff one-half the stock; that the defendants were then engaged in the candy business in which they represented they had each invested $2,500; that the cash on hand of said business exceeded the liabilities; that said business was equipped to manufacture and sell 600 pounds of candy a day and had customers ready to buy that amount; and that defendants then had in mind another man who was willing to invest $10,000 in said business. The trial court found that all these representations were untrue; that plaintiff believed and relied upon them to his injury, and that defendants knew that they were untrue.

On this appeal the sole ground urged by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support these findings. All the arguments advanced by appellant would be pertinent if addressed to the trial court, but they are of no force here because in each instance the record discloses that there is some substantial evidence in support of the finding made. This point is emphasized when we bear in mind that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove every item of false representations alleged but that he can recover upon proof of one. Here the evidence as to the representations relating to the amount of money invested in the business by the defendants and that relating to the financial condition of the business is so clear and so free from substantial conflict that it alone is sufficient to support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to recover money alleged to have been paid to the defendants through fraud and deceit. He had judgment for $2,503.10 and the defendant Jespersen alone has appealed.

The complaint alleged that the money was paid upon the defendants’ representations that they would organize a corporation for the manufacture and sale of candy and give plaintiff one-half the stock; that the defendants were then engaged in the candy business in which they represented they had each invested $2,500; that the cash on hand of said business exceeded the liabilities; that said business was equipped to manufacture and sell 600 pounds of candy a day and had customers ready to buy that amount; and that defendants then had in mind another man who was willing to invest $10,000 in said business. The trial court found that all these representations were untrue; that plaintiff believed and relied upon them to his injury, and that defendants knew that they were untrue.

On this appeal the sole ground urged by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support these findings. All the arguments advanced by appellant would be pertinent if addressed to the trial court, but they are of no force here because in each instance the record discloses that there is some substantial evidence in support of the finding made. This point is emphasized when we bear in mind that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove every item of false representations alleged but that he can recover upon proof of one. Here the evidence as to the representations relating to the amount of money invested in the business by the defendants and that relating to the financial condition of the business is so clear and so free from substantial conflict that it alone is sufficient to support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P.2d 844, 125 Cal. App. 135, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ness-v-timm-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack