Lynch v. International Banking Corp.

Plaintiff, as receiver of the Pacific Coast Casualty Company, sued in conversion for the value of eighteen bonds. Defendant, after generally and specifically denying the allegations of the complaint, pleaded special defenses of estoppel and ratification. Trial resulted in a judgment for defendant upon each and every issue.

The learned trial judge wrote an opinion in the case which was introduced in evidence at the hearing on motion for a new trial. Appellant contends that this “opinion” is contrary to the findings, and that as the former represents the true conclusions of the trial judge, the lower court “should have either granted a new trial or required defendant to agree to a modification of the findings as a condition for not granting the new trial.” Appellant concedes, as he must, that the “opinion” of the trial judge cannot be substituted for the findings in the consideration of this appeal. “The findings of fact must be taken as embodying the con clusions of the trial court upon all questions of fact submitted to it for its decision.” (Goldner v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 317, 320 [ 125 Pac. 347 , 348].) See, also, Scholle v. Finnell, 173 Cal. 372, 376 [ 159 Pac. 1179 ], and White…