BENEDICT v. LILLY (1934)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

BENEDICT v. LILLY.

Civ. 8022.

Decided: October 23, 1934

Sparling & Teel, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Lyndol L. Young, M. K. Young, and John C. Gillham, all of Los Angeles, for respondent.

Appellant's first point upon this appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings. The argument advanced in support of this is one that would call for the weighing of conflicting evidence by this court. Of course, it is impossible for the court to do this. An examination of the transcript discloses sufficient evidence to support the material findings.

The second point is that the defendant's pleadings are insufficient and that findings are not made of material facts. We find nothing in the argument of appellant that would justify a reversal of the judgment on this ground.

Appellant's third point is that the court's findings are inconsistent, but we are unable to find such an inconsistency as would justify a reversal.

As her fourth point, appellant states that the court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff in the admission of evidence. We find nothing in the specifications advanced to support this point that would justify a reversal of the judgment rendered.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

YORK, Justice.

We concur: CONREY, P. J.; HOUSER, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network