White v. Beer
California Supreme Court
White v. Beer, 105 Cal. 9 (Cal. 1894)
38 P. 513; 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1100
Haven
White v. Beer
Opinion of the Court
1. So far as relates to the question of
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, we think the case falls within the well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court will not be set aside by us when there is a substantial conflict in the evidence.
2. The refusal of plaintiff to release the defendant Mrs. Jennie Beer from the payment of the note sued on, and to accept the other defendants, Clifton and Weil, as his sole debtors thereon, was not a fraud upon the other creditors of Mrs. Beer, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence upon the part of plaintiff, and upon: which the court based its findings.
Judgment and order affirmed.
McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- GEORGE E. WHITE v. JENNIE BEER
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeal—Review of Conflicting Evidence.—The findings of the trial court will not be set aside upon appeal for insufficiency of the evidence to support them when there is a substantial conflict in the evidence. Settlement of Insolvent with Creditop.s—Transfer of Assets to Sureties upon Note—Refusal of Payee to Release Debtor—Frauds.— Where an insolvent debtor has turned over all assets to two sureties upon a note of the debtor, in consideration that such sureties shall pay all indebtedness of the insolvent, including the note upon which they were sureties, the refusal of the holder of the note to release the debtor therefrom does not operate as a fraud upon the other creditors who consented to release the insolvent, and to accept the assignees of the defendant as sole debtors, and the note may be enforced against the principal debtor.