Brovelli v. Bianchi

P. BROVELLI, Respondent, v. v. BIANCHI, Appellant

Brovelli v. Bianchi, 69 P. 416 (Cal. 1902)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 20, 1902
Docket: No. S.F. No. 2087.
Judges: Cooper
Citations: 69 P. 416136 Cal. 6121902 Cal. LEXIS 769

Headnotes

Appeal—Review op Evidence—Specifications not Pointed out in Brief—Presumptions.—The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings will not be considered upon appeal where no suggestion is made in the appellant’s brief as to the respects wherein it is insufficient, and the evidence is not pointed out in the brief. In such ease, it will be presumed that the evidence supports every material finding of fact. Id.—General Finding.—A general finding that none of the allegations of defendant’s answer and cross-complaint are true was sufficient, and included a finding against all affirmative allegations of the answer.

Summary

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cooper

*613 COOPER, C.

This action was brought to recover $367.35, the agreed price for wine sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at his instance and request. The case was tried before the court, without a jury, findings filed, and judgment thereupon entered for plaintiff as prayed. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial. The first point made is, that the evidence does not sustain the findings. The evidence is not pointed out in the- brief of appellant, and no suggestion made as to the respects wherein the evidence fails to support the findings or any finding. In such case we will not endeavor to discover the respects wherein the evidence -is insufficient, but will presume that it supports every material finding of fact.

The claim is further made that the court failed to find upon the affirmative allegations of defendant’s answer as to rescission and counterclaim.

The court found that none of the allegations of defendant’s answer and cross-complaint are true. This was sufficient.

(Williams v. Hall, 79 Cal. 607 .)

We advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Gray, C., and Smith, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., Temple, J.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irrigation District296 P. 1088 (Cal. 1931)
Devers v. Greenwood293 P.2d 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
Kruckow v. Lesser244 P.2d 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
Whitney v. Dewey69 L.R.A. 572 (Idaho 1905)
Rinker v. McKinley149 P.2d 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
First National Bank v. De Moulin205 P. 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)

Most recent

Koster v. County of San Joaquin47 Cal. App. 4th 29 (1996)
Devers v. Greenwood293 P.2d 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
Kruckow v. Lesser244 P.2d 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
Rinker v. McKinley149 P.2d 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
Burr v. Pacific Indemnity Co.133 P.2d 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Peal v. Gulf Red Cedar Co.59 P.2d 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list