Murrill

Murrill v. Van Vleet

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 13·50 Cal. App. 471·195 P. 432
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1920Civ. No. 3606.California1,345 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Wood, J.

This is an action to recover an alleged balance of $5,190.55 upon a mutual, open, and current account for pasturage furnished by plaintiff between October 1, 1915, and April 1, 1918. The credit allowed to defendant is $200.45 for moneys paid by him for taxes upon land, which was in the possession of plaintiff under a contract to purchase the same from defendant.

There was a verdict for plaintiff for $2,716.92. Upon a motion for a new trial, the court made a conditional order granting it, unless within ten days plaintiff should remit all of the judgment in excess of $300. He declined to accept the reduction and has appealed from the order.

The principal point raised here and argued by the parties is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a mutual account. It is contended by appellant that if there is any evidence to uphold the findings of the jury, then the order must be reversed, because, as he claims, for certain reasons not necessary here to mention, the order cannot be construed under section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 141), as having been granted upon any other ground than that of a legal insufficiency of the evidence…

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.