Morgan v. McIntyre
A. F. MORGAN Et Al., Executors, Etc., Respondents, v. ELEANOR F. McINTYRE, Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- K. Van Zante
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- probate
- Panel
- Gray (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 — Gray
GRAY, J., pro tem.
Eleanor F. McIntyre asks a reversal of the judgment, canceling a deed from decedent to her for lack of delivery, because of alleged errors in the denial of her motion for a nonsuit and in the admission in evidence of two letters written by decedent after the purported delivery. The facts and circumstances surrounding such delivery are fully set forth in the companion case of Morgan v. Matthieson, 103 Cal. App. 510 [285 Pac. 325], involving the delivery, simultaneously with the present one, of another deed from decedent to another grantee. By presenting evidence after the denial of her motion, appellant changed the question for decision from the correct *627 ness of the ruling on her motion to the sufficiency of the whole evidence to support the judgment. As was pointed out in the above-cited case, in discussing substantially the same evidence, the conflict in the testimony makes the trial court’s determination conclusive. This case also holds that the letters were admissible, not to disparage the deed, but to give light on decedent’s intent as to divesting himself of title.
Upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.
Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Morgan v. Matthieson Docket No. 7237. · 1930-01-29
Cited by
- Housh v. Pacific States Life Insurance Co. Civ. 5074 · 1934-11-05