Burns

Burns v. Schoenfeld

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 121·1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 90·81 P. 713
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 1905No. 23.California1,448 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action to recover from defendants the value of certain gold and gold-bearing rock of which plaintiff alleges ownership and possession, and that defendants wrongfully and against his will took, carried away, and converted to their own use. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and plaintiff had judgment for six hundred dollars, with interest from February 23, 1899, and costs.

Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appeal from the order. There is no appeal from the judgment, and we therefore cannot consider the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment, and can only inquire whether the findings are supported by the evidence. (Rauer v. Fay, 128 Cal. 523 , [ 61 Pac. 90 .])

It appears from the findings: That defendants are owners of a mine of which one Bleck (originally made a defendant) was general manager; that near said property, and on public lands of the United States, defendants selected a site for a quartz-mill and were engaged in grading said site for the purpose of erecting a quartz-mill thereon, and on February 23, 1899, employed plaintiff as a laborer to do grading for them for the purpose of erecting said quartz-mill, which said…

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.