Woolman v. Hammond

California Court of Appeal

Woolman v. Hammond

250 P. 195, 79 Cal. App. 527, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 108

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 19, 1926

DocketDocket No. 3129.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 P. 195 (Woolman v. Hammond) 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

Woolman v. Hammond, 250 P. 195, 79 Cal. App. 527, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

FINCH, P. J.

The defendants Hammond and Lee prosecute this appeal from the judgment herein upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision and judgment in that no consideration for their agreement, upon which the suit is based, was proved. The only specification of insufficiency of the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions is as follows: “Appellant takes exception to the decision and judgment of the court herein on the ground that the same are not supported by the evidence.”

“No particular form of exception is required, but when the exception is to the verdict or decision, upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify it, the objection must specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient. The objection must be stated, with so much of the evidence or other matter as is necessary to explain it, and no more.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 648.)

It is settled by a long line of decisions that such a specification as the one under consideration is insufficient. (Gosliner v. Briones, 187 Cal. 557, 558 [204 Pac. 19]; Williams v. Bullock Tractor Co., 186 Cal. 32, 39 [198 Pac. 780]; Carter v. Canty, 181 Cal. 749, 752 [186 Pac. 346]; Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797, 799 [Ann. Cas. 1918E, 184, L. R. A. 1918B, 415, 167 Pac. 394]; Hawley v. Harrington, 152 Cal. 188, 189 [92 Pac. 177]; Agalianos v. American Central Ins. Co., 62 Cal. App. 349, 364 [217 Pac. 107]; Clarkson v. Moir, 53 Cal. App. 775, 776 [201 Pac. 474].) It may be stated further that an examination of the evidence shows that there was a sufficient consideration for the agreement.

The judgment is affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Hart, J., concurred.

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

FINCH, P. J.

The defendants Hammond and Lee prosecute this appeal from the judgment herein upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision and judgment in that no consideration for their agreement, upon which the suit is based, was proved. The only specification of insufficiency of the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions is as follows: “Appellant takes exception to the decision and judgment of the court herein on the ground that the same are not supported by the evidence.”

“No particular form of exception is required, but when the exception is to the verdict or decision, upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify it, the objection must specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient. The objection must be stated, with so much of the evidence or other matter as is necessary to explain it, and no more.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 648.)

It is settled by a long line of decisions that such a specification as the one under consideration is insufficient. (Gosliner v. Briones, 187 Cal. 557, 558 [204 Pac. 19]; Williams v. Bullock Tractor Co., 186 Cal. 32, 39 [198 Pac. 780]; Carter v. Canty, 181 Cal. 749, 752 [186 Pac. 346]; Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797, 799 [Ann. Cas. 1918E, 184, L. R. A. 1918B, 415, 167 Pac. 394]; Hawley v. Harrington, 152 Cal. 188, 189 [92 Pac. 177]; Agalianos v. American Central Ins. Co., 62 Cal. App. 349, 364 [217 Pac. 107]; Clarkson v. Moir, 53 Cal. App. 775, 776 [201 Pac. 474].) It may be stated further that an examination of the evidence shows that there was a sufficient consideration for the agreement.

The judgment is affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Hart, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 P. 195, 79 Cal. App. 527, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolman-v-hammond-calctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack