Wallace v. Hopkins

California Supreme Court

Wallace v. Hopkins

18 P. 673, 2 Cal. Unrep. 873, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 965

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 13, 1888

DocketNo. 11,226

StatusPublished

This text of 18 P. 673 (Wallace v. Hopkins) 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

Wallace v. Hopkins, 18 P. 673, 2 Cal. Unrep. 873, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 965 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

FOOTE, C.

This action was brought to recover a sum of money alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant. The court below gave judgment in favor of the defendant, and from that and an order denying a new trial the plaintiff has appealed. In his statement, on motion for a new trial, he specifies particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient to support findings 1 and 2 of the decision; and his main contention here seems to be that the trial court made those findings against the evidence given on the trial. We have carefully examined all the evidence in the record, and are of the opinion that the court below was fully justified in finding as it did, and, no prejudicial error appearing, we advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

Per CURIAM.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

FOOTE, C.

This action was brought to recover a sum of money alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant. The court below gave judgment in favor of the defendant, and from that and an order denying a new trial the plaintiff has appealed. In his statement, on motion for a new trial, he specifies particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient to support findings 1 and 2 of the decision; and his main contention here seems to be that the trial court made those findings against the evidence given on the trial. We have carefully examined all the evidence in the record, and are of the opinion that the court below was fully justified in finding as it did, and, no prejudicial error appearing, we advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

Per CURIAM.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 P. 673, 2 Cal. Unrep. 873, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-hopkins-cal-1888.