Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 Cal. 220

Barry v. Coughlin

California Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1891

California Supreme Court · decided 1891-07-16

<p>Appeal—• Review oe Evidence.—Where there is evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court, the judgment will he affirmed, although the appellate court might have found otherwise if sitting as a trial court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-07-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1951

5 state decisions

201891190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Sharpstein, J.

¶1— Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. The plaintiff was employed to work on a building of defendant Coughlin’s by the defendant Grace, who had contracted with defendant Coughlin to make certain repairs on said building. The defendants Coughlin, Galdón, and Galdón answered the plaintiff’s complaint by alleging that the claim and demand of the plaintiff has been fully paid and discharged. Defendant Grace does not answer.

¶2The only issue raised by the pleadings is that of payment, and upon that issue the parties went to trial. The court found in favor of the defendants, and entered judgment accordingly. Appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the decision is not justified by the evidence. There was some evidence tending to prove payment, and we cannot disturb the finding of the court on that issue, although if sitting as a trial court we might have found otherwise.

¶3Judgment and order affirmed.

¶4McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

¶5Hearing in Bank denied.

/90/cal/220 · .json · Public domain