Hume

Hume v. Lindholm

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 361·85 Cal. App. 80·258 P. 1003
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 1927Docket No. 4816.California1,876 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

York, J.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered against him and from an order denying his motion to set aside the judgment. Because of another appeal by plaintiff, it may avoid confusion if we refer to" the parties to this appeal as plaintiff and defendant.

The action is for money due on contract. A decision was announced by the trial court in favor of plaintiff on submission of the case on May 23, 1922, and plaintiff’s attor neys were directed to prepare findings. The decision announced from the bench was “in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum claimed.” The sum claimed was $800.40, with interest at seven per cent per annum from July 30, 192Í.

But the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed until August 16, 1922. Those findings declared, among other things, that under the terms of a certain contract between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant promised to pay plaintiff $800.40, with interest at seven per cent per annum from July 30, 1921—that the defendant in attempting to liquidate his said indebtedness to plaintiff delivered to her a grant deed dated August 11, 1921, purporting to convey to her certain described real estate; that…

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.