Ewing

The facts of this case are substantially set forth in respondent’s brief, as follows:

Appellants contend that there is no evidence to support the finding that the destruction of the note was without the consent of plaintiff or the intention on her part that the indebtedness thereby represented should be canceled.

Respondent testified that she was leaving for New York on a visit, expecting to remain about four weeks, and that she gave appellants the note, saying that “in case anything should happen to her while on the trip, she wanted appellant to have the note, but upon her return she wanted it back.” That direct and positive testimony was repeated several times in the testimony of respondent and is sufficient to create a conflict in the testimony and ample to support the findings complained of.

Appellants also complain of the finding that there was no understanding of agreement between respondent and appellants that respondent should pay appellants anything for her board and lodging. Upon this point there is also ample testimony in the record to support the finding. Respondent testified that she was supposed to be one of the family, was not a boarder, but was living with them…