Pigott

Pigott v. Clark

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 53·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 557·23 P.2d 800
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1933Docket No. 7650.California1,694 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Desmond, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $1652.48 which the trial court found to be the balance due on certain promissory notes which had been transferred by one Mitchell to the plaintiff, the judgment also carrying costs.

The defendant appeals, not questioning the correctness of the amount which the court found was unpaid, but contending that no part of it is due or owing, claiming specifically that there'is insufficient evidence to justify the decision, or particularly one of the findings numbered XIII, which is hereinafter set forth.

The defendant, a veterinarian by profession, was the owner of an oil-well in the Alamitos Heights field. His superintendent, Howard Murchie, an oil man of many years’ experience, purchased in December, 1927, some 2%-inch upset tubing from Alfred W. Mitchell, doing business as Coast Supply Co. Mitchell had a 5-acre lot on which he kept pipe, tubing and other supplies. The tubing was kept in piles and the particular lot in question was selected by Murchie. It appeared at the trial that various kinds of tubing are used in oil operations, among them “Reading”, “D B X” and seamless steel tubing. “Reading” is an iron tubing, but, according to the…

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.