Scholz v. Gartland

California Court of Appeal

Scholz v. Gartland

37 Cal. App. 284

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 17, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2450

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Cal. App. 284 (Scholz v. Gartland) 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

Scholz v. Gartland, 37 Cal. App. 284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

In this action for services rendered by plaintiff as an architect to the owner of certain property, who contemplated erecting a building thereon, plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appeals upon two grounds: First, that the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was so inherently improbable as to amount to no evidence at all; and, second, that there were certain errors in the instructions given by the court to the jury.

We do not. consider it necessary to review the facts of the case. We have carefully examined the transcript, and conclude that the verdict of the jury was amply warranted by the evidence.

We are also satisfied that the instructions given by the court correctly stated the law applicable to the case, and that there was no error in the refusal of certain instructions and the modification of others requested by the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

In this action for services rendered by plaintiff as an architect to the owner of certain property, who contemplated erecting a building thereon, plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appeals upon two grounds: First, that the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was so inherently improbable as to amount to no evidence at all; and, second, that there were certain errors in the instructions given by the court to the jury.

We do not. consider it necessary to review the facts of the case. We have carefully examined the transcript, and conclude that the verdict of the jury was amply warranted by the evidence.

We are also satisfied that the instructions given by the court correctly stated the law applicable to the case, and that there was no error in the refusal of certain instructions and the modification of others requested by the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Cal. App. 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scholz-v-gartland-calctapp-1918.