Butler v. Agnew
California Court of Appeal
Id.—Conclusions of Law in Findings of Fact—Directory Statute. Although conclusions of law are mingled with findings of fact, that cannot constitute ground for reversal.
Read the full summary
Id.—Conclusions of Law in Findings of Fact—Directory Statute. Although conclusions of law are mingled with findings of fact, that cannot constitute ground for reversal. The réquirement of the statute that findings of fact and conclusions of law must be separately stated is merely directory; and if correct findings or conclusions of law and fact be made, they may be considered in their true character wherever set out; and if there be any doubt as to which class a finding belongs to, it is to be resolved in favor of the judgment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment. The action is for an accounting, and plaintiff urges a reversal of the judgment in favor of the defendant because it is not supported by the findings. He also contends that by the elimination from the findings of a probative fact which he claims does not aid in sustaining the judgment, and certain conclusions of law which improperly and erroneously appear in the findings of fact, this court would not only be justified in reversing the judgment entered, but warranted in directing a judgment on the findings in favor of plaintiff.
The trial court found that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Paine v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Dam v. ZinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Burke v. BoursCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Franklin v. Nat C. Goldstone AgencyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- McManus v. FultonMontana Supreme Court · 1929
- Kyne v. KyneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.