Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Cal. 390

Williams v. Hill

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Daingerfield, J. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, the defendant, and one Tiburcio Parrott, and two others, entered into a joint adventure for the purchase and sale of stocks—each to contribute equally; that up to the 27th day of March, 1874, there was advanced by the parties the aggregate sum of $217,085.41—of which each of the defendants had advanced about equal sums, except the defendant, who had advanced only $12,368.88 ; and that at the same date there was due…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1921

4 state decisions

2018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:

¶1Plaintiff had judgment; defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and defendant appealed.

¶2On 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.

¶3The 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.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed.

¶5Thornton, P. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

/54/cal/390 · .json · Public domain