Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Cal. App. 673

97 P 698

Aydelotte v. Billing

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 15, 1908

California Court of Appeal · decided 1908-08-15

<p>Action fob, Legal Services—Pleading—Finding—Bequest not Essential.—In an action to recover for legal services performed by plaintiff for'the defendant, it is not essential that the plaintiff should allege a request for the services, and where such averment is made, the omission to find thereon is not material. The request is implied or presumed from the averment of the performance of the services for the defendant.</p> <p>Id.—Bules as to Omission to Find.—Notwithstanding the general rule that a judgment based upon findings which do not determine all the material issues is a decision against law, which can be assailed on motion for a new trial; yet it is sufficient if all the material issues are substantially covered by the findings, and that the appellant is not injured by an omission to find.</p> <p>Id.—Fact? Implied by Law—Finding not Bequired.—No finding is required as to any fact implied by law from a cause of action alleged against the defendant; and in an action for personal services performed for the defendant, it is unnecessary to find either upon a request for the services, or upon an agreement to pay the reasonable value thereof, each of which is a fact implied by law.</p> <p>Id.—Failure to Make Adverse Finding—Answer as to Defect of Parties.—Where the court found upon sufficient evidence that the services were performed for defendant by plaintiff individually, the performance thereof by a partnership is excluded; and where there is no evidence that any services were performed by a partnership, a finding upon that issue tendered by the answer as to defect of parties must have been adverse to the defendant appealing, and an omission to find is not ground for reversal.</p>

Relies on McFarland v. Holcomb

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1908-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1943

8 state decisions

3019081910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1In response to appellant's earnest petition for a rehearing, we deem it sufficient to call attention to the following quotation from the case of McFarland v. Holcomb,123 Cal. 85, [55 P. 761]: "In her complaint she alleges as the basis of her claim 'that William A. Holcomb was at the time of his death indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars as a balance due plaintiff for nursing, boarding, counseling, advising, and taking care of said William M. Holcomb almost continuously from the twenty-ninth day of November, 1870, down to the fourth day of November, 1895, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.' " It will thus be seen that the action was for services performed, that there was no allegation that they were performed at the instance or request of Holcomb, or that there was any promise to pay. The supreme court, however, held that the complaint stated a cause of action. If that case is not directly in point here, or if it is to be overruled, the decision to that effect must come from the supreme court.

¶2The rehearing is denied.

¶3Hart, J., and Chipman, P. J., concurred.

¶4A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on October 12, 1908, Beatty, C. J., dissenting. *677

/8/calapp/673 · .json · Public domain