White v. Beer

California Supreme Court

White v. Beer

38 P. 513, 105 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1100

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1894

DocketNo. 15480

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 P. 513 (White v. Beer) 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

White v. Beer, 38 P. 513, 105 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1100 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Be Haven, J.

1. So far as relates to the question of

the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, we think the case falls within the well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court will not be set aside by us when there is a substantial conflict in the evidence.

2. The refusal of plaintiff to release the defendant Mrs. Jennie Beer from the payment of the note sued on, and to accept the other defendants, Clifton and Weil, as his sole debtors thereon, was not a fraud upon the other creditors of Mrs. Beer, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence upon the part of plaintiff, and upon: which the court based its findings.

Judgment and order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Be Haven, J.

1. So far as relates to the question of

the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, we think the case falls within the well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court will not be set aside by us when there is a substantial conflict in the evidence.

2. The refusal of plaintiff to release the defendant Mrs. Jennie Beer from the payment of the note sued on, and to accept the other defendants, Clifton and Weil, as his sole debtors thereon, was not a fraud upon the other creditors of Mrs. Beer, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence upon the part of plaintiff, and upon: which the court based its findings.

Judgment and order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P. 513, 105 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-beer-cal-1894.

Opinion

1. So far as relates to the question of

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack