Cooper v. Margulis-Stulman Co.
KATIE FEIDNER COOPER, Respondent, v. MARGULIS-STULMAN COMPANY (A Corporation), Defendant; M. MURDOCK Et Al., Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Edward T. Bishop.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thompson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Thompson
THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the appellants only, for the sum of $712.71. The sole ground of appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the following findings: "That at various times between the 5th day of February, 1926, and the 26th day of July, 1928, the plaintiff paid to the defendants, M. Murdock and L. L. Redfern, the sum of $2,354.26 in cash, and thereafter the said defendants paid out on behalf of the plaintiff various sums of money amounting in all to the sum of $1,641.55, and that the said defendants retained and still retain the sum of $712.71 out of the moneys paid by plaintiff to the said defendants.”
The testimony of the appellant Murdock shows the receipt by appellants of $2,354.26 and that they paid out for respondent $1641.55 and nothing more. One direct question and its answer is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. Conn *649 sel: “Q.' So that you still have on hand of Mrs. Cooper’s money $721.77—is that correct A. Yes sir.” In more detail we come to the same conclusion from the remainder of the testimony. There is no merit in the appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Craig, Acting P. J., and Frieke, J., pro tem., concurred.