Hoppe v. Robb
Hoppe v. Robb
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Nathaniel Bennett (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 — Bennett
By the Court, BeNNett, J.
The action was for money loaned. The question for determination at the trial was whether the money was advanced as a loan, or by way of subscription for the purpose of establishing a newspaper at San José. There was conflicting evidence upon this point, and the judge of the district court found that the money was advanced as a subscription.
*374"We bare frequently held that we would not review the verdict of a jury upon a question of fact, where there was conflicting or contradictory evidence, upon which the verdict was based. The same rule applies to the finding of a judge, to whom a question of fact is submitted, and upon which he has passed. The j udgme-nt in this cause must, therefore, be affirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
Cited by
- Sears v. Schwartz Civ. No. 13959 · 1943-10-25
- McGrath v. Basich Brothers Construction Co. Civ. 9491 · 1935-06-14
- Rolland v. Porterfield L. A. No. 6064. · 1920-08-03
- Bernard v. Raglan No. 964 · 1856-02-18