Allen v. Wachter, 276 P. 1017 (Cal. 1929). · Go Syfert
Allen v. Wachter, 276 P. 1017 (Cal. 1929). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors (mont, 2016-04-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1929 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1929 1977 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Objectors
Mont. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co., 276 P. 1017, 1030 (Cal. 1929)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
D. Nev. · 1999 · confidence medium
Co., 207 Cal. 8 , 276 P. 1017, 1025 (1929).
discussed Cited "see" Null v. City of Los Angeles
Cal. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . .” (Orig. italics.)’ [Citation.]” (Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1051 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 526 ], quoting Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d *1533 706, 712 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ]; see Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 298 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 418, pp. 415-416.) A corollary of this rule is that, “The giving of an instruction will not be revi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GEORGE W. ALLEN, Administrator, Etc., Appellant,
v.
W. C. WACHTER Et Al., Respondents
Docket No. L.A. 9388..
California Supreme Court.
Mar 26, 1929.
276 P. 1017
1929 Cal. LEXIS 664
Jas. W. Glassford for Appellant. Harry W. Horton for Respondents.
Langdon.
Published
LANGDON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in which it was determined that the defendants were the owners and entitled to the immediate possession of a large wooden structure known as a “cantaloupe shed,” located on leased ground at Imperial, California. The contest was between the public administrator, as the personal representative of John B. Ryan, deceased, a former owner of the property, and the defendants, who alleged that deceased had transferred the property to them before his death in payment of an indebtedness due to defendants and equal to the value of the shed.

The appeal presents merely one question of fact: Whether or not the evidence sustains the finding that the transfer of the property from decedent to defendants, by duly executed bill of sale, constituted a sale under all the facts and circumstances. We are not disposed to discuss the evidence in detail; it is apparent that it is not convincing. There are conflicting inferences which might be drawn from the record and the trial court has resolved the conflict in favor of the defendants. In view of the fact that the burden rested upon the plaintiff, the defendants being in possession and having a bill of sale, valid on its face, we cannot say this action of the trial court was not justified.

The judgment is affirmed.

Preston, J., Shenk, J., Richards, J., Seawell, J., Waste, C. J., and Curtis, J., concurred.