Speranco v. Bryan

California Court of Appeal

Speranco v. Bryan

264 P. 300, 88 Cal. App. 761, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 280

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 2, 1928

DocketDocket No. 6231.

StatusPublished

This text of 264 P. 300 (Speranco v. Bryan) 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

Speranco v. Bryan, 264 P. 300, 88 Cal. App. 761, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

TYLER, P. J.-

-Action to set aside a sale under a trust deed. The sole contention of plaintiffs at the trial was that the notice of sale under the trust deed was not posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises sold. The trial court in substance found that the notice was properly posted and judgment went for defendant. Appellants contend that the proof of posting was too limited and does not sustain the finding for the reason that at the particular place on the premises where the notice was posted the land was elevated and covered with flowers and shrubbery. There is no merit in this claim. The evidence upon the subject was somewhat conflicting, but it is amply sufficient to support the finding. *762 The question of whether or not the notice was posted in a conspicuous place is one upon which minds may differ and it must be determined by the court in the exercise of its judicial function. (Elder v. Frevert, 18 Nev. 278 [3 Pac. 237].) Such determination cannot here be disturbed where there is evidence to support it. There is no merit in the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Parker, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

TYLER, P. J.-

-Action to set aside a sale under a trust deed. The sole contention of plaintiffs at the trial was that the notice of sale under the trust deed was not posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises sold. The trial court in substance found that the notice was properly posted and judgment went for defendant. Appellants contend that the proof of posting was too limited and does not sustain the finding for the reason that at the particular place on the premises where the notice was posted the land was elevated and covered with flowers and shrubbery. There is no merit in this claim. The evidence upon the subject was somewhat conflicting, but it is amply sufficient to support the finding. *762 The question of whether or not the notice was posted in a conspicuous place is one upon which minds may differ and it must be determined by the court in the exercise of its judicial function. (Elder v. Frevert, 18 Nev. 278 [3 Pac. 237].) Such determination cannot here be disturbed where there is evidence to support it. There is no merit in the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Parker, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 P. 300, 88 Cal. App. 761, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speranco-v-bryan-calctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack