gno.law

Van Tassell v. Heidt

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 2038. · 1917-03-15 · Published · 164 P.2d 817 · 33 Cal. App. 234 · 164 P. 817 · 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 133

MYRTLE K. VAN TASSELL, Respondent, v. ELLA HEIDT, Defendant; LAURA HEIDT, Administratrix, Etc., Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Santa Cruz County
Trial judge
Lucas F. Smith
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles M. Cassin, and James L.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court. &#8212 (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

THE COURT.

From the examination which the court has made of the entire record in this case, and dealing with the matter of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court, we are satisfied that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant the findings and decision of the trial court. This being an action against the parents of a young *235 woman, who alone have appealed, for having alienated from his wife the affections of a man who had illicitly sought the regard of said daughter, the evidence does not show that the defendants in the action were ever guilty of conduct tending to alienate the affections of the husband from his wife so as to subject them to an action for damages. In other words, there is no sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court in so far as the appellants, the father and mother, are concerned. That being so—and without reference to the question of the error which the court made in the admission of hearsay evidence, which seems to have been repeated, but ‘which may not have been sufficiently objected to—we think that the judgment against the appellants ought to be reversed, and it is so ordered.

Cited by