Foster

Foster v. Young

Good Law
172 Cal. 317·1916 Cal. LEXIS 533·156 P. 476
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 14, 1916L. A. No. 3527. In Bank.California1,258 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Melvin, J.

These appeals were heard by the district court of appeal of the second appellate district. Upon petition a hearing before this court was ordered for the reason that, while a majority of the justices of this court fully agreed with the learned district court of appeal in the dis- mission by that court of the denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, some doubt was entertained regarding the conclusions reached in the decision of the appeal from the" judgment. After a hearing before this court, and further study of the case, we still agree with our brethren of the district court upon the matter of the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, and we hereby adopt the following part of the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Victor E. Shaw :

In analyzing the appeal from the judgment we shall first examine the special interrogatories submitted to and answered by the jury. Regarding the agreement alleged in the first count of the complaint that Foster was to receive twenty per cent of any recovery, the jurors found that there was no such contract. The second interrogatory was as follows:

The learned district court of appeal interpreted the fourth question and the answer…

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.