Majority
p. 610[No. 7,222. Department One.] October 26, 1882. CHARLES S. TILDEN v. THE SAUCELITO LAND AND FERRY CO.
Headnote
Conflict in Testimony—Finding—Verdict.—There is a substantial conflict in the evidence on the question of the employment of the plaintiff, by the defendant, and therefore the verdict cannot be disturbed.Appeal by defendant from a judgment in the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. Dwinelle, J.
Also, appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the same city and county, denying a motion for .a new trial. Hunt, J.
Action in the nature of indebitatus .assumpsit, to recover for goods, wares, and merchandise, sold and delivered, and materials furnished. Also for work and labor performed and ,money laid out and expended in and about the repairing of
p. 611
the “ Clifton House ” in Saucelito, County of Marin. The case in the Court below was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.
McElrath & Eells, for Appellant.
Estee & Boalt, for Respondent.
The sole point discussed on the argument in this case, relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
It is contended that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was ever engaged by the defendant to do the work to recover pay for which the action was brought.
In our judgment the case is one of substantial conflict of evidence on this point, and according to the long settled rule, the verdict cannot be disturbed.
Judgment and order affirmed.