Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

136 Cal. 612

69 P 416

Brovelli v. Bianchi

California Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1902

California Supreme Court · decided 1902-06-20

<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

Relies on Williams v. Hall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-06-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1996

12 state decisions

301902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*613 COOPER, C.

¶1 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.

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

¶3 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.)

¶4 We advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

¶5 Gray, C., and Smith, C., concurred.

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

¶7 McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., Temple, J.

/136/cal/612 · .json · Public domain