Majority
p. 44[L. A. No. 650. Department Two. June 25, 1900.] D. W. FIELD, Appellant, v. JOHN BURR, Sheriff, etc., Defendant. CAROLINE KOSTER, Intervenor and Respondent.
Headnote
Findings—Immaterial Variance—Judgment.—Where the findings of fact are full and explicit, a judgment entered thereon In favor of an intervenor will not be reversed merely because in the conclusions of law the word “plaintiff” is inadvertently used for “intervenor.”APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Luden Shaw, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mulford & Pollard, for Appellant.
W. J. Variel, for Defendant.
E. E. Powers, for Intervenor and Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment for intervenor in a suit for the recovery of personal property levied upon hy defendant, as sheriff, under attachment in favor of plaintiff against third party.
The findings are unusually full and explicit, hut in "the conclusions of law the word “plaintiff” is inadvertently used for “intervenor,” which is the ground urged for reversal. (Dougherty v. Ward, 89 Cal. 81 .)
We recommend that the judgment he affirmed.
Gray, C., and Haynes, C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed. McFarland, J., Temple, J., Henshaw, J.
Cases cited
- Dougherty v. Ward 89 Cal. 81 p. 44