Patent Brick Co. v. Wissinger

California Supreme Court

Patent Brick Co. v. Wissinger

38 P. 639, 4 Cal. Unrep. 915, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1265

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 20, 1894

DocketNo. 15,654

StatusPublished

This text of 38 P. 639 (Patent Brick Co. v. Wissinger) 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

Patent Brick Co. v. Wissinger, 38 P. 639, 4 Cal. Unrep. 915, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1265 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

Judgment went for plaintiff in the superior court and defendant appeals. Appellant contends for a reversal of the judgment and order denying a new trial upon two grounds: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to justify the finding that there was not an account stated between the parties; and (2) that it was insufficient to justify the finding that there was a balance of $3,365.24 due from appellant. These contentions are very fully and well presented in the brief of counsel for appellant; and it is there very strongly argued that the case at bar does not come within the rule which obtains in cases where there is a substantial conflict of evidence. But, after an examination of the record, we are satisfied that there was such a substantial conflict as brings the case within said rule. A statement of the evidence here would serve no useful purpose. One asserted error of law in ruling out a certain question asked a witness is referred to in the brief, although apparently not much relied on. Considering the other evidence in the case, it was unimportant whether the question was allowed or not. Judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

We concur: De Haven, J.; Fitzgerald, J.

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

McFARLAND, J.

Judgment went for plaintiff in the superior court and defendant appeals. Appellant contends for a reversal of the judgment and order denying a new trial upon two grounds: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to justify the finding that there was not an account stated between the parties; and (2) that it was insufficient to justify the finding that there was a balance of $3,365.24 due from appellant. These contentions are very fully and well presented in the brief of counsel for appellant; and it is there very strongly argued that the case at bar does not come within the rule which obtains in cases where there is a substantial conflict of evidence. But, after an examination of the record, we are satisfied that there was such a substantial conflict as brings the case within said rule. A statement of the evidence here would serve no useful purpose. One asserted error of law in ruling out a certain question asked a witness is referred to in the brief, although apparently not much relied on. Considering the other evidence in the case, it was unimportant whether the question was allowed or not. Judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

We concur: De Haven, J.; Fitzgerald, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P. 639, 4 Cal. Unrep. 915, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patent-brick-co-v-wissinger-cal-1894.