Veall

Veall v. Sanborn

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 87·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 661·300 P. 974
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 18, 1931Docket No. 6577.California880 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bishop, J.

This is an action based on a breach of promise to marry. A verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $25,000 was by the trial court reduced to $15,000, but is still too high, appellant complains. No fault is found with the proceedings that led to the judgment except the giving of two instructions, the objection to them being not that they are wrong in themselves, but that they should not have been given in this case because there was no evidence upon which to base them. We find the evidence sufficient to justify the giving of the instructions and to warrant the sum for which the judgment now provides.

The first instruction which defendant says was not warranted by the evidence reads as follows: “If you should find from the evidence in this case that the defendant has attempted to prove that the plaintiff was a lewd and base woman, and was of immoral or bad character, and that he has failed to establish and prove the same by preponderance of the evidence, and that such attempt was not made in good faith or was made without any reasonable hope or expectation of establishing such fact, then such charge and failure on the part of the defendant may be taken Into consideration by you, in fixing…

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.