Stufflebeem v. Arnold

California Supreme Court

Stufflebeem v. Arnold

57 Cal. 11

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

DocketNo. 7,343

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 57 Cal. 11 (Stufflebeem v. Arnold) 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

Stufflebeem v. Arnold, 57 Cal. 11 (Cal. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Thornton, J.

This action was brought to recover of defendant the sum of $835, for money had and received for plaintiff, and $426 for rent of a house for a term set forth in the complaint. The defendant" denied all indebtedness, and pleaded a release of the demands sued on. The cause was tried by the Court, and judgment passed for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and the defendant appealed from the judgment and order.

We have examined the transcript, and find no error. The evidence offered as to the consideration on which the release was executed by plaintiff was admissible. It did not tend to alter the terms of the release.

There was no findings of fact in the case. The evidence [12]*12tended to sustain the decision of the Court. On the controverted points, there was some conflict in the evidence, but it was sufficient to sustain the decision.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Myrick, J., and Sharpsteih, J., concurred.

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

Thornton, J.

This action was brought to recover of defendant the sum of $835, for money had and received for plaintiff, and $426 for rent of a house for a term set forth in the complaint. The defendant" denied all indebtedness, and pleaded a release of the demands sued on. The cause was tried by the Court, and judgment passed for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and the defendant appealed from the judgment and order.

We have examined the transcript, and find no error. The evidence offered as to the consideration on which the release was executed by plaintiff was admissible. It did not tend to alter the terms of the release.

There was no findings of fact in the case. The evidence [12]*12tended to sustain the decision of the Court. On the controverted points, there was some conflict in the evidence, but it was sufficient to sustain the decision.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Myrick, J., and Sharpsteih, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Cal. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stufflebeem-v-arnold-cal-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack