Wild v. Arrand

California Court of Appeal

Wild v. Arrand

286 P. 480, 104 Cal. App. 511, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 994

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 17, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7257.

StatusPublished

This text of 286 P. 480 (Wild v. Arrand) 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

Wild v. Arrand, 286 P. 480, 104 Cal. App. 511, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for the rescission of a contract. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff's appeal.

The only point presented for a reversal of the judgment is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings of fact. The evidence taken at the trial is not before us. There is neither a bill of exceptions prepared in accordance with section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor a transcript of the evidence under the provisions of section 953a et seq. of said code. We are, therefore, precluded from examining the evidence. (Bell v. Brigance, 194 Cal. 445 [229 Pac. 27]; Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal. 95 [231 Pac. 739].) Under such circumstances the findings of the trial court must be accepted as the facts of the case. (Spring Valley Water Co. v. County of Alameda, 88 Cal. App. 157 [263 Pac. 318].)

Plaintiffs claim that the title to a certain automobile which they received under the terms of the contract never vested in them and, therefore, there was a failure of consideration. (Sec. 45 (e), p. 402, California Vehicle Act of 1925.) On this subject the court found: “That on or about the 23d day of November, 1923, and within a reasonable time after said exchange, defendants secured a certificate of *513 registration for the said Mitchell car from the State of California, and delivered the same to plaintiffs, and at the said time defendants offered to transfer the said certificate of registration to plaintiffs, but plaintiffs refused to accept such transfer.”

The court also found that appellants did not restore or offer to restore what they had received from the defendants. (See. 1691, Civ. Code.)

These findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment.

No error has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, Acting P. J., concurred.

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

BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for the rescission of a contract. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff's appeal.

The only point presented for a reversal of the judgment is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings of fact. The evidence taken at the trial is not before us. There is neither a bill of exceptions prepared in accordance with section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor a transcript of the evidence under the provisions of section 953a et seq. of said code. We are, therefore, precluded from examining the evidence. (Bell v. Brigance, 194 Cal. 445 [229 Pac. 27]; Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal. 95 [231 Pac. 739].) Under such circumstances the findings of the trial court must be accepted as the facts of the case. (Spring Valley Water Co. v. County of Alameda, 88 Cal. App. 157 [263 Pac. 318].)

Plaintiffs claim that the title to a certain automobile which they received under the terms of the contract never vested in them and, therefore, there was a failure of consideration. (Sec. 45 (e), p. 402, California Vehicle Act of 1925.) On this subject the court found: “That on or about the 23d day of November, 1923, and within a reasonable time after said exchange, defendants secured a certificate of *513 registration for the said Mitchell car from the State of California, and delivered the same to plaintiffs, and at the said time defendants offered to transfer the said certificate of registration to plaintiffs, but plaintiffs refused to accept such transfer.”

The court also found that appellants did not restore or offer to restore what they had received from the defendants. (See. 1691, Civ. Code.)

These findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment.

No error has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, Acting P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 P. 480, 104 Cal. App. 511, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-v-arrand-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack