Wright v. Locomobile Co. of America

California Court of Appeal

Wright v. Locomobile Co. of America

167 P.2d 407, 167 P. 407, 33 Cal. App. 694

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 17, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 2062.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 167 P.2d 407 (Wright v. Locomobile Co. of America) 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

Wright v. Locomobile Co. of America, 167 P.2d 407, 167 P. 407, 33 Cal. App. 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Action upon a contract for the laying of a floor of a specified description in a building. Plaintiff recovered judgment, from which defendant appeals, as also from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The main question relied upon for a reversal of the judgment and order is as to whether or not there was a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract, and the appellant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the trial court to that effect. The judge of the court below, after hearing all of the evidence and going into all of the technical facts in relation to the different classes of floor, visited the building and examined the floor itself. It seems to the court, upon an examination of the entire record, that this is a case where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and that particularly is true where the judge of the court, after hearing the testimony of the respective contractors and experts, went and examined the premises himself, saw the floor, and then decided that there had been a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract. Under those circumstances we will not undertake to review or reverse the decision of the trial court, and for the reasons stated the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

Action upon a contract for the laying of a floor of a specified description in a building. Plaintiff recovered judgment, from which defendant appeals, as also from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The main question relied upon for a reversal of the judgment and order is as to whether or not there was a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract, and the appellant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the trial court to that effect. The judge of the court below, after hearing all of the evidence and going into all of the technical facts in relation to the different classes of floor, visited the building and examined the floor itself. It seems to the court, upon an examination of the entire record, that this is a case where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and that particularly is true where the judge of the court, after hearing the testimony of the respective contractors and experts, went and examined the premises himself, saw the floor, and then decided that there had been a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract. Under those circumstances we will not undertake to review or reverse the decision of the trial court, and for the reasons stated the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 P.2d 407, 167 P. 407, 33 Cal. App. 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-locomobile-co-of-america-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack