Ramsbottom v. Fitzgerald

California Supreme Court

Ramsbottom v. Fitzgerald

52 P. 149, 5 Cal. Unrep. 941

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1898

DocketSac. No. 279

StatusPublished

This text of 52 P. 149 (Ramsbottom v. Fitzgerald) 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

Ramsbottom v. Fitzgerald, 52 P. 149, 5 Cal. Unrep. 941 (Cal. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented is whether the evidence sustains the finding of the jury that the deed from defendants to plaintiff was intended as an absolute conveyance of the property, in satisfaction of the pre-existing indebtedness, and not as a mortgage to secure such debt. It would subserve no useful purpose to state the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that while, to our minds, it would seem to preponderate strongly in favor of defendants’ contention that the deed was intended as a mortgage, there certainly was direct and positive' evidence tending to support the finding, and of a character to create a substantial conflict. This conflict was to be determined by the jury, and in such a ease we cannot, under long-established principles, disturb their verdict. Judgment and order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented is whether the evidence sustains the finding of the jury that the deed from defendants to plaintiff was intended as an absolute conveyance of the property, in satisfaction of the pre-existing indebtedness, and not as a mortgage to secure such debt. It would subserve no useful purpose to state the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that while, to our minds, it would seem to preponderate strongly in favor of defendants’ contention that the deed was intended as a mortgage, there certainly was direct and positive' evidence tending to support the finding, and of a character to create a substantial conflict. This conflict was to be determined by the jury, and in such a ease we cannot, under long-established principles, disturb their verdict. Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P. 149, 5 Cal. Unrep. 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsbottom-v-fitzgerald-cal-1898.