Majority
p. 290[No. 12951. Department Two. December 24, 1890.] WILLIAM CAMPE, Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN MEIERDIERCKS, Appellant.
Headnote
Appeal — Review of Conflicting Evidence.—Where the evidence is conflicting. the decision of the court below on a question of fact will not be ' disturbed.Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
The action was brought to recover the sum of $3,630 for money loaned to the defendant. The defendant de
p. 291
Died the loan, and pleaded that all but fifteen hundred dollars of the money was given to the defendant freely and without solicitation, and that the remaining sum of fifteen hundred dollars was a present from the plaintiff to defendant’s daughter, and' that by the plaintiff’s direction, he gave his note for that sum to his daughter. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
W. B. Tyler, for Appellant.
Henry H. Reid, for Respondent.
In this case the whole question is as to an issue of fact, which was determined by the court below in favor of plaintiff.
Whether the money sued for was a gift or not, part of it to the defendant, and a part of it to his daughter, depends on evidence in the cause. The evidence was on all material points conflicting. The court below decided that the money was not a gift, and rendered judgment for plaintiff.
It is no use to review the evidence, but as it was conflicting on the issue above mentioned, according to the long^establislied rule of this court, the decision of the court below will not be disturbed.
Judgment and order affirmed.
McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.