Moore

I think that the evidence in-this case is wholly insufficient to sustain the findings of the superior court as to the defense of the statute of limitations, and therefore I dissent from the order denying a rehearing in Bank.

This action was brought to cancel two deeds and a bill of sale made by plaintiff, on the ground of mental impairment, undue influence, etc., at the time of their execution. The findings and judgment were in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal from the judgment.

Some exceptions were taken to rulings of the court about the admissibility of certain evidence, but these exceptions were afterward withdrawn. The plea of the statute of limitations was practically disposed of when the case was here before on a demurrer to the complaint. (Moore v. Moore, 56 Cal. 89 .) The complaint set up all the facts upon which the plea of the statute could be based, and this court held that the plea was not good; and as the court found those facts upon sufficient evidence in favor of respondent, we must hold that the defense of the statute of limitations has not been maintained.

There is, therefore, only one question—argued elaborately by appellants—to be disposed of, and that is, *196 Does the evidence justify the findings and judgment on the real merits of the case?

The undisputed facts in the case are so strongly in favor of respondent that the evidence on the disputed facts would have to be…