Potter v. Camp

California Court of Appeal

Potter v. Camp

265 P. 1025, 90 Cal. App. 601, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 3, 1928

DocketDocket No. 4781.

StatusPublished

This text of 265 P. 1025 (Potter v. Camp) 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

Potter v. Camp, 265 P. 1025, 90 Cal. App. 601, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 5 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] The plaintiff brought suit for the sum of $1,137.76, alleged to be due him on an oral contract to build a house for defendants and for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien for such sum. Judgment was entered against defendants for the sum of $587.96, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived.

Both parties to the appeal represent in their briefs that the trial court held the claim of lien invalid, and no complaint as to such ruling is made here. Appellants' sole point is that a statement of the court at the conclusion of the testimony, and directing judgment, shows the judgment to be erroneous. But this court cannot consider this statement as findings of fact. There is nothing further before us.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P.J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

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

[1] The plaintiff brought suit for the sum of $1,137.76, alleged to be due him on an oral contract to build a house for defendants and for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien for such sum. Judgment was entered against defendants for the sum of $587.96, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived.

Both parties to the appeal represent in their briefs that the trial court held the claim of lien invalid, and no complaint as to such ruling is made here. Appellants' sole point is that a statement of the court at the conclusion of the testimony, and directing judgment, shows the judgment to be erroneous. But this court cannot consider this statement as findings of fact. There is nothing further before us.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P.J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 P. 1025, 90 Cal. App. 601, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-camp-calctapp-1928.