Baule

Baule v. Drobatz

Good Law
1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 94·6 Cal. App. 594·92 P. 666
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 9, 1907Civ. No. 350.California995 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action for work and labor done, and for money loaned. Judgment was entered on both counts for plaintiff. From this judgment and the order denying her motion for a new trial defendant appeals. Insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact and newly discovered evidence are the chief grounds upon which appellant relies.

The plaintiff was a second cousin of Martin Drobatz, the husband of the defendant, and also an intimate friend of the Drobatz family. He lived with that family at intervals up to the death of defendant’s husband in May, 1905. While living with them plaintiff would sometimes pay for his board by working, and at other times by the payment of such sums of money as would seem to him to be fair. He testified, however, that on March 1, 1905, the defendant told him that her husband was ill and could not work, and she requested plaintiff to take charge of her ranch in Santa Clara county. From that date until August 1, 1905, he was the only man on the place, and he did all the work necessary to be done about the premises; that there had been no agreement as to his wages, but he thought his services were reasonably worth $30 a month. He also…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.