Stufflebeem v. Arnold

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, in the Tenth District Court, County of Colusa. Hatch, J. After the decision, the appellant filed his petition that the cause be reheard in Bank, and the application was denied. Action for money had and received; the defendant relied upon a written agreement of release, reciting a consideration of one dollar. The plaintiff offered to prove by oral evidence that the true consideration for the release was the return of certain personal property by the defendant, and that the defendant had failed to return it.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1929

3 state decisions

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 →

Thornton, J.

¶1This action was brought to recover of defendant the sum of $835, for money had and received for plaintiff, and $426 for rent of a house for a term set forth in the complaint. The defendant" denied all indebtedness, and pleaded a release of the demands sued on. The cause was tried by the Court, and judgment passed for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and the defendant appealed from the judgment and order.

¶2We have examined the transcript, and find no error. The evidence offered as to the consideration on which the release was executed by plaintiff was admissible. It did not tend to alter the terms of the release.

¶3There was no findings of fact in the case. The evidence *12tended to sustain the decision of the Court. On the controverted points, there was some conflict in the evidence, but it was sufficient to sustain the decision.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed.

¶5Myrick, J., and Sharpsteih, J., concurred.