Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Herron v. Gear 35 Cal. App. 810

← Cases

Herron v. Gear

35 Cal. App. 810 Court First Appellate District. Decision date 1917-12-15 Docket Civ. No. 1767 English

Contents

Majority

p. 810
[Civ. No. 1767.
First Appellate District.
December 15, 1917.]
WILLIAM F. HERRON, Respondent, v. LEWIS S, GEAR, Appellant.

Headnote

Promissory Note — Settlement of Action — Fraud—Sufficiency of Evidence.—Order denying motion to compel entry of satisfaction of judgment affirmed on authority of Edwards et al. v. Gear et al., ante, p. 602.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a motion to compel the entry of satisfaction of a judgment. Daniel C. Deasy, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion in the case of Le Roy M. Edwards et al. v. Leíais E. Gear et al., ante, p. 602.
Edward R. Eliassen, and De Lanccy C. Smith, for Appellant.
Leroy M. Edwards, L. R. Weinmann, and William F. Herron, in pro. per., for Respondent.

This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to enter a satisfaction of the judgment originally entered in the court below and subsequently affirmed upon appeal to this court. {Herron v . Gear, 26 Cal. App. 18 , [ 145 Pac. 731 ].)

The motion in question was made after the remittitur in the case of Herron v. Gear went down from this court and during the trial of the case of Le Roy M. Edwards et al. v. Lewis S. Gear et al., wherein judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and this day affirmed by this court. The trial of the latter case and the hearing of the motion now under consideration were heard jointly by the court below and the motion was submitted upon the evidence adduced at the trial of that case.

p. 811
It is now insisted that the evidence thus adduced not only warranted, but should have compelled, the granting of the motion. In this behalf the argument of counsel for the defendant and appellant is identical with the argument made against the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant and support the judgment in the ease above referred to.

Our conclusion in that case was that the evidence amply supports the judgment, and that being so, the court below was justified upon the same evidence in denying the motion to compel the plaintiff to satisfy the judgment.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cases cited