California Courts of Appeal, 1950

Berry v. Ryan

California Courts of Appeal · Decided May 15, 1950 · McCOMB

97 Cal. App. 2d 492; 217 P.2d 1015; 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Rooz v. Kimmel (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)
Issa v. Alzammar (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1995)
Savett v. Davis (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1994)
Bennett v. California Custom Coach, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
County of Los Angeles v. Surety Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
Mitchell v. Poole (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)
Mitchell v. Poole (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1988)
In re Marriage of Olivarez (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
People v. Trevisanut (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1984)
Roth v. Keene (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Scott (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
Smith v. Williams (Cal. 1961)
Eggeman v. Binford (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Slaughter v. Zimman (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover for money allegedly due under a contract, and against defendant on his cross-complaint seeking to recover money he had paid to plaintiff under a contract, defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Respondent (plaintiff) has not favored this court with a brief.' Appellant (defendant) seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the evidence does not sustain material findings of fact of the trial court. Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant’s brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious. (Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [151 P.2d 887]; Ziegler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [126 P.2d 118]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136, 139 et seq. [128 P.2d 691]. Of., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175,177 [63 P. 176].)

Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial which is a nonappealable order is dismissed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.