Henley

Henley v. Pacific Fruit Cooling & Vaporizing Co.

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 728·1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 167·127 P. 800
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 1912Civ. No. 914.California2,418 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an action to recover judgment against the company above named for services rendered by plaintiff as “refrigerating and constructing engineer” in the erection of a precooling and refrigerating plant on certain described premises, situated in the town of Newcastle, Placer county, of which plant defendants are alleged to be the owners; also that plaintiff be declared to have a lien thereon and for the enforcement thereof. The court found that plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant company for the sum of $528.50 and costs, of which the sum of $495 was found to be a lien upon the buildings and plant of defendants, described in the complaint. Judgment passed accordingly, from which and from the order denying their motion for a new trial defendants appeal.

Quoting some advice given by the supreme court to trial courts, found in Green v. Soule, 145 Cal. 102 , [ 78 Pac. 337 ], as t-o the duty of the trial court to grant a new trial where the decision is against the weight of the evidence, it is urged that “the decision in this case is clearly against the weight of evidence and against the law.” It was said in the case cited: “The trial court cannot rest upon a…

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.