Williams v. Hill

California Supreme Court
Williams v. Hill, 54 Cal. 390 (Cal. 1880)
Department, Myrick

Williams v. Hill

Opinion of the Court

Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:

Plaintiff had judgment; defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and defendant appealed.

On the trial in the Court below, plaintiff Williams testified as to the amount duo plaintiff from defendant on account of advances, and that the agreement signed by defendant, ending the joint adventure, was drawn according to their verbal understanding. ■ Defendant testified that it was not according to their understanding. Here was a direct conflict of evidence. The Court below found in favor of plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly. In such case this Court Avill not disturb the judg-ment.

The objection that the findings do not support the judgment, in that the Court did not find as to the alleged mistake, is fully answered by the finding of the Court “ that all the facts set forth in the complaint are true; ” and by the fourth finding. The facts set forth in the complaint, (transcript, folios 9 to 11) are entirely inconsistent with the mistake alleged in the answer. If the allegations of the complaint are true, there could be no such mistake.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, P. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Reference

Full Case Name
WILLIAMS v. HILL
Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Finding—Mistake.— The complaint alleged that the defendant contracted to a certain effect with the plaintiff and others. The defendant, pleaded that the written contract signed by him did not represent the understanding of the parties, and that he signed it under a mistake, induced by misrepresentations as to its contents by one of the parties, at whose request he signed it. The Court found that all the allegations of the complaint were true. Held, 1st—the evidence being conflicting—that the finding was conclusive upon the question as to whether there was a verbal understanding different from the written agreement; and, 2ndly, That the finding negatived the defense of mistake pleaded in the answer, and sufficiently disposed of that issue.