Burger

Hope Mining Co. v. Burger

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 267·37 Cal. App. 239·174 P. 932
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 1918Civ. No. 1843.California2,269 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

It is difficult to consider seriously the contentions of appellant. The decision of the trial judge is so manifestly just and equitable, and the conduct of appellant in the transaction between the parties so reprehensible, that probably- the only question which we ought to notice specifically is whether damages should not be imposed for a frivolous appeal.

However, largely out of respect for the learned counsel for appellant, who has manifested zeal and ability worthy of a better cause, we will devote some attention to the essential features of the case. There was some conflict in the evidence upon material points, but the conflict was created by the testimony of appellant and his brother, whose statements on the witness-stand are apparently characterized by -equivocation, evasion, and misrepresentation. It is therefore not surprising that their testimony carried no conviction to the mind of the trial judge. From the opinion filed in deciding the ease in the lower court we take the following facts:

The action was brought to compel appellant to convey to plaintiff certain placer mining claims described in the com plaint, paid for with, the money of plaintiff, and the title to…

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.