Ponce

Ponce v. McElvy

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 890
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1875No. 4841California352 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

— One of the defenses relied upon is that the plaintiff sold and transferred the Le Coat note and mortgage mentioned in the complaint to Neville, and the court below found the fact to be that in the year 1865 “the plaintiff sold, assigned and transferred the note and mortgage described in the complaint to one R. Neville, who thereupon became and was the owner and holder thereof in his own right, and not as a pledge or trust.” It was conceded by the counsel who represented the appellant at the argument that the judgment below must be affirmed if there is evidence in the record which supports this finding.

It is the settled practice of this court not to disturb a finding of fact, made by the trial court and supported by *891 evidence in the record, merely because the evidence upon the point is contradicted by other evidence also appearing in the record.

Questions concerning the mere credibility of opposing witnesses and the consequent weight to be attached to their respective statements, when fairly in conflict, are matters for the determination of the trial court, where, in the nature of things, the opportunities for a correct determination in that respect are superior to those…

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.