Tower

Bates v. Tower

Good Law
103 Cal. 404·1894 Cal. LEXIS 789·37 P. 385
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 24, 1894No. 19323California435 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

The defendants are husband and wife, and this action was brought against them to recover damages for a breach of an alleged written agreement, of which the following is a copy:

The court found the execution of the agreement and a breach thereof by the defendant, Virginia A. Tower, substantially as alleged, and gave judgment against her for damages in the sum of three thousand one hundred dollars, from which judgment and from an order denying her motion for a new trial she alone appeals.

The appellant contends that in several specified particulars the findings of fact by the court are not justified *406 by the evidence; but the sufficiency of the evidence in each of the other specified particulars depends upon its sufficiency to justify the finding that, in dealings leading up to the execution of the agreement above set out, Frank C. Tower was authorized to act as the agent of his wife, Virginia; and that this finding is amply justified is so obvious that it would be a waste of space and time to make a detailed statement of the direct and circumstantial evidence tending to prove it.

It is further insisted that the court erred in admitting evidence of what the husband did and…

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.