Van Tassell v. Heidt

California Court of Appeal

Van Tassell v. Heidt

164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 234, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 133

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 15, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 2038.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 P.2d 817 (Van Tassell v. Heidt) 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

Van Tassell v. Heidt, 164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 234, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 133 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

From the examination which the court has made of the entire record in this case, and dealing with the matter of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court, we are satisfied that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant the findings and decision of the trial court. This being an action against the parents of a young *235 woman, who alone have appealed, for having alienated from his wife the affections of a man who had illicitly sought the regard of said daughter, the evidence does not show that the defendants in the action were ever guilty of conduct tending to alienate the affections of the husband from his wife so as to subject them to an action for damages. In other words, there is no sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court in so far as the appellants, the father and mother, are concerned. That being so—and without reference to the question of the error which the court made in the admission of hearsay evidence, which seems to have been repeated, but ‘which may not have been sufficiently objected to—we think that the judgment against the appellants ought to be reversed, and it is so ordered.

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

THE COURT.

From the examination which the court has made of the entire record in this case, and dealing with the matter of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court, we are satisfied that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant the findings and decision of the trial court. This being an action against the parents of a young *235 woman, who alone have appealed, for having alienated from his wife the affections of a man who had illicitly sought the regard of said daughter, the evidence does not show that the defendants in the action were ever guilty of conduct tending to alienate the affections of the husband from his wife so as to subject them to an action for damages. In other words, there is no sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court in so far as the appellants, the father and mother, are concerned. That being so—and without reference to the question of the error which the court made in the admission of hearsay evidence, which seems to have been repeated, but ‘which may not have been sufficiently objected to—we think that the judgment against the appellants ought to be reversed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 234, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-tassell-v-heidt-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack