Wright v. Wright

California Supreme Court

Wright v. Wright

25 P. 411, 3 Cal. Unrep. 343

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 20, 1890

DocketNo. 13,749

StatusPublished

This text of 25 P. 411 (Wright v. Wright) 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

Wright v. Wright, 25 P. 411, 3 Cal. Unrep. 343 (Cal. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is a clean-cut conflict in the evidence. The plaintiff testified that defendant left him, in 1885, without cause and against his wishes, and had ever since, without reason, refused to return and live with him. There was sufficient corroboration. Letters introduced in evidence and the testimony of friends and members of the family tended to show that plaintiff was happy with his wife, and treated her kindly; and his father testified that defendant told him, in 1885, she would not live with the plaintiff any longer. That she has not in fact lived with him is undisputed. The court heard the conflicting statements of the parties, weighed the evidence, and we are not at liberty to set our judgment against this conclusion, even though our conviction should be that the defendant’s evidence preponderates. The court did not err in its ruling as to the admissibility of certain evidence. Judgment and order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There is a clean-cut conflict in the evidence. The plaintiff testified that defendant left him, in 1885, without cause and against his wishes, and had ever since, without reason, refused to return and live with him. There was sufficient corroboration. Letters introduced in evidence and the testimony of friends and members of the family tended to show that plaintiff was happy with his wife, and treated her kindly; and his father testified that defendant told him, in 1885, she would not live with the plaintiff any longer. That she has not in fact lived with him is undisputed. The court heard the conflicting statements of the parties, weighed the evidence, and we are not at liberty to set our judgment against this conclusion, even though our conviction should be that the defendant’s evidence preponderates. The court did not err in its ruling as to the admissibility of certain evidence. Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 P. 411, 3 Cal. Unrep. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-wright-cal-1890.