Richter v. Walker (1951)

Any uncertainty in the findings will be construed so as to support the judgment rather than to defeat it.’ [Citation.] Even where findings are to some extent inconsistent a judgment may not be set aside unless the conflict is clear and material and the findings are incapable 50 of being harmoniously construed.” (Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 (Richter).) Although the word “manipulation” in the quoted sentence from the trial court’s decision arguably connotes act…

It may be an “aye” or “nay” response to a roll call, or it may be any “expression of wish, or choice, or preference,” without regard to “tfoe method through which that result was accomplished.” (Bourland v. Hildreth (1864) 26 Cal. 161, 195 ; and see 44A Words and Phrases (1962) p. 4, “the formal expression of a will, preference, wish, or choice in regard to any measure proposed, ... ”) “And the aggregate of the expressions of will or choice, thus manifested by individuals, i…

Where, as here, a trial court’s finding is ambiguous, that “ambiguit[y] must be resolved in favor of upholding the action of the trial court if such can be reasonably done.” (Daly City v. Smith (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 524, 531 ; Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [“Any uncertainty in the findings will be construed so as to support the judgment rather than to defeat it”]; People v. Megladdery (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 748, 772 [“we must give the order, if possible, that con…

(See Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ], and cases cited.) We perceive no reason for courts to ignore that principle when considering section *846 409.1 motions.

(Leming v. Oilfields Trucking Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 343, 346 [ 282 P.2d 23 , 51 A.L.R.2d 107 ]; Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) Appellants owned and operated a small combination liquor-grocery store near Porterville, California.

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) A finding the buyer seeking specific performance of a contract has the ability to purchase is supported by proof “he commanded resources upon which he could obtain the requisite credit.” (Merzoian v. Kludjian, 183 Cal. 422, 430 [ 191 P. 673 ]; see also Am-Cal Investment Co. v. Sharlyn Estates, Inc., 255 Cal.App.2d 526, 546 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 518 ].) The evidence shows plaintiffs were the owners of property contiguous to a…

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639-640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].)

(Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 126 P.2d 868 ]; Church of Merciful Saviour v. Volunteers of America, 184 Cal.App.2d 851, 856-857 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 48 ].) When the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of fact is contested on appeal, the issue thus presented is whether there is any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ]; Richter, v. Walker, 36 C…

In our view, from the above express findings, it can reasonably be implied that the court found that any benefits conferred upon plaintiff by Pacific had been compensated for by its above-mentioned arbitrary charges. 5 This implied finding is confirmed by the court’s remarks on hearing Pacific’s motion for a new trial. 6 As stated in Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]: “[W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not …

As stated in Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639-640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] : “As to the principles governing appellate courts in considering the adequacy of findings to dispose of issues and support a judgment it is a general rule that ‘Even though a finding might have been more clearly phrased, it is sufficient if its language is clear enough to indicate what the court intended; and if there are findings sufficient to support the judgment, they are not vitiated by the unintell…

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) Plaintiff’s final point is that it was error to deny an injunction and award any damages.

Co. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ].) The rule quoted is as applicable in reviewing the findings of a judge, as it is when considering a jury’s verdict. ’ See, also, Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].” (Massow v. Gianaclis, 120 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28 [ 260 P.2d 655 ] ; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Appeal § 84, p. 2245.) While the appellant’s pleadings were founded on negligence and implied warranty, the thrust of his brief on appeal is on strict liab…

Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ] ; Cavero v. Franklin etc. Benevolent Soc., 36 Cal.2d 301 [ 223 P.2d 471 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] ; Vaughn v. Jonas, 31 Cal.2d 586, 593 [ 191 P.2d 432 ]; Correa v. Quality Motor Co., 118 Cal.App.2d 246, 253 [ 257 P.2d 738 ], and Justice Vallee’s lament in Overton v. Vita-Food Corp., 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370 [ 210 P.2d 757 ].) Appellant first contends that respondent’s conduct in copying patients’ records wi…

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Gross v. Needham, 184 Cal.App.2d 446, 456 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 664 ].) 1.

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Gross v. Needham, 184 Cal.App.2d 446, 456 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 664 ].) The majority of cases in which it is urged that the damages are inadequate involve a jury award and/or order on plaintiff's motion for new trial, and a determination of the issue of adequacy by the appellate court on a review of the evidence in the record before it.

On the other hand, ‘a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.’ [Emphasis added.] (Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] ; italics added.) To the same effect: Logan v. Forster (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 587, 602 [ 250 P.2d 730 ], “Neither by expression nor implication do …

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) The evidence amply supports such findings. *393 The court’s finding that the easement for stockpiling on lots 16 and 17 was appurtenant to lots 14 and 15 finds sufficient support in the evidence.

While it probably does not require separate findings on all issues of fact, it would appear to require, in those situations covered by § 634, something more than findings from which omitted findings could be inferred.” [Italics added.] In Culbertson v. Cizek, 225 Cal.App.2d 451, 465 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 548 ], the court referred to the rule stated in Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ], as follows: “ ‘ [W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues …

(See Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [226 P.2d 593]; Greenberg v. Hastie (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 159, 173 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 747 ].) Plaintiff made no request for special findings.

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) The express finding quoted above was sufficient to indicate to appellants that they had presented no valid defense to respondent’s petition.

(Ric hter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) In view of the foregoing determination and the admission in the answer of the defendants Lloyd Frimmersdorf and Lloyd Frimmersdorf & Associates, the finding that all of the defendants executed the subject contract must be sustained.

(Ruppert v. Jackson, 212 Cal.App.2d 678, 682-683 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 467 ]; Haldeman v. Haldeman, 202 Cal.App.2d 498, 506-507 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 75 ]; Carmichael v. Carmichael, 216 Cal.App.2d 674, 679 [31 Cal.Rptr. 514]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) As stated in Calloway v. Downie, 195 Cal.App.2d 348,353 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 747 ]: “The prohibition of section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure against inferred findings applies if the party attacking the judgment…

As the court said in Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] : “ [W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” (See also Greenberg v. Hastie (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 159, 173 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 747 ].) However the abov…

From this finding we think it can be reasonably implied that the court acting on the referee's recommendation found that the 1961 will was not decedent's last will and, having adopted the referee's report, that the provisions of such purported will, its existence at the testator's death, and its destruction during the testator's lifetime either fraudulently or by public calamity had not been established. [6] As stated in Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d…

As stated in Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] : “[W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” (See also Greenberg v. Hastie (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 159, 173 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 747 ].) Such principles are appli…

(Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Greenberg v. Hastie (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 159, 173 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 747 ]; Pry Corp. of America v. Leach (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 632, 636 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].)

Co., 204 Cal.App.2d 540, 545 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 560 ] is, in part, apposite: “At this juncture it is appropriate to consider certain rules of law pertaining to the sufficiency of findings and the need therefor under the evidence. [1] As a general rule ‘a judgment .will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are mad…

As stated in Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]: “ [W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made. ...” Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that the only finding that could have been made as to the validity …

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Broadway Federal etc. Loan Assn. v. Howard, 133 Cal.App.2d 382, 396 [ 285 P.2d 61 ]; Leonard v. Fallas, 51 Cal.2d 649, 653 [ 335 P.2d 665 ]; Berk v. Twentynine Palms Ranchos, Inc., 201 Cal.App.2d 625, 634 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 144 ]; Lattanzi v. San Moritz Club, 202 Cal.App.2d 546, 551 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 847 ].) *506 The definitive and compelling answer to this claim of appellant lies in the fact that he saw fit to sue by common …

In Greenberg v. Hastie, supra, 202 Cal.App.2d 159 , 173 we quoted from Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] as follows: “ ‘ [W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary *815 implication from the express findings which are made.” We find no obstacle to the applic…

Dist., 53 Cal.2d 735, 741 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 350 P.2d 95 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) The plaintiff also claims that the trial court erred in finding as untrue the allegation that Gerald falsely represented that he intended to place a construction loan on the property and improve the same because, by his testimony, he admitted that he told her he would put a construction loan on the property and build on it, and the fact that he caused $2,700 …

Co., 55 Cal.2d 430, 438 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 360 P.2d 50 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) Applying the foregoing general rules to the instant ease, we conclude that the findings of the trial court as to bad faith are supported by the evidence.

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] ; Greco v. Oregon Mut.

Dist., 53 Cal.2d 735, 741 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 350 P.2d 95 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) The oral opinion of a trial judge may not be substituted for findings of fact by the court.

As a general rule “a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Beksinski v. Beksinski, 151 Cal.App.2d 674, 676 [ 312 P.2d 268 ].) However, this rule does not apply if the appealing party made a request for a specific finding upon the…

“Findings of fact must be liberally construed to support the judgment ...” (Johndrow v. Thomas, 31 Cal.2d 202, 207 [ 187 P.2d 681 ]) ; in the absence of indications to the contrary, include findings on all special facts necessary to sustain them (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Greco v. Oregon Mut.

As is said in Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]: “[W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.

It is also to be noted that while full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) Until 1956 there was no claim that the area embraced within the platted street in question was no…

(La Mar v. La Mar, 30 Cal.2d 898 , 900 [ 186 P.2d 678 ].) Respondent argues that “a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent *507 with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ].) He also argues that appellant waived the right to complain by not having taken advantage of the 1959 …

As stated in Richter v. Walker (1951) 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] : “ [W]hile full findings are required upon all material issues a judgment will not be set aside on appeal because of a failure to make an express finding upon an issue if a finding thereon, consistent with the judgment, results by necessary implication from the express findings which are made.” In the light of the record, it also appears that had the trial court made a finding on such issue, it could …

(Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [226 P.2d 593]; Johndrow v. Thomas, 31 Cal.2d 202, 207 [ 187 P.2d 681 ]; Woodbine v. Van Horn, 29 Cal.2d 95, 109 [ 173 P.2d 17 ]; Knapp v. City of Newport Beach, 186 Cal.App.2d 669, 673 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 90 ]; Arvin-Kern Co. v. B.

(Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 126 P.2d 868 ]; Church of Merciful Saviour v. Volunteers of America, 184 Cal.App.2d 851, 856-857 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 48 ].) When the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of fact is contested on appeal, the issue thus presented is whether there is any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ] ; Richter v. Walker, 36 C…

(Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221, 223 [ 143 P.2d 689 ].) There is substantial evidence in the record before us, as heretofore noted, which supports the finding of the trial court as to the value of the right to renewal commissions on policies issued through the defendant’s agency during marriage.

(Richter v. Walker (1951), 36 Cal.2d 634, 646 [ 226 P.2d 593, 600 ].) Bach amount is figured Erom the day a sum became due and remained unpaid; it is cot calculated as though it ran from the date of the contract.

Dist., 53 Cal.2d 735, 741 [ 350 P.2d 95 ] ; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] ; Pry Corp. of America v. Leach, 177 Cal.App.2d 632, 636 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) Implicit in the findings herein is the determination that the grant in question constituted a franchise; was subject to the term limitation prescribed by the charter; and ceased to exist upon the expiration of 25 years.

On appeal findings must be construed in support of the judgment (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Johndrow v. Thomas, 31 Cal.2d 202, 207 [ 187 P.2d 681 ]); and it will be assumed in support of the judgment in this ease that the assignment referred to in the finding in question was implied from the conduct of the parties and occurred upon the close of escrow.

In Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 226 P.2d 593 ], the court said: “ As to the principles governing appellate courts in considering the adequacy of findings to dispose of issues and support a judgment it is a general rule that ‘Even though a finding might have been more clearly phrased, it is sufficient if its language is clear enough to indicate what the court intended; . . ” Furthermore, in another finding the court clarified the ambiguity.

Corp., 42 Cal.2d 734, 736 [ 269 P.2d 12 ]; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 226 P.2d 593 ]; Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221, 223 [ 143 P.2d 689 ].) Section 12300 of the Business and Professions Code provides that; “Contracts . . . for anything to be sold ... by weight or measure shall be construed according to the common standards, or according to the weights and measures of the metric system authorized by Congress, as the contract provides.” It is argued that the on…

Any uncertainty in the findings will be construed to support the judgment rather than defeat it (Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] ; Aguirre v. Fish & Game Com., 151 Cal.App.2d 469, 474 [ 311 P.2d 903 ]).

As said in Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 226 P.2d 593 ] : “As to the principles governing appellate courts in considering the adequacy of findings to dispose of issues and support a judgment it is a general rule that ‘Even though a finding might have been more clearly phrased, it is sufficient if its language is clear enough to indicate what the court intended; and if there are findings sufficient to support the judgment, they are not vitiated by the unintelligibil…