From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berry v. Ryan

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
May 15, 1950
97 Cal.App.2d 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)

Summary

In Berry v. Ryan, 97 Cal.App.2d 492, 493 [ 217 P.2d 1015], it is set forth: "Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant's brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious.

Summary of this case from Roth v. Keene

Opinion

Docket No. 17359.

May 15, 1950.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying motion for a new trial. Thurmond Clarke, Judge. Judgment reversed; appeal from order dismissed.

Action to recover money due under a contract. Judgment for plaintiff reversed.

Francis C. Whelan for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.


From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover for money allegedly due under a contract, and against defendant on his cross-complaint seeking to recover money he had paid to plaintiff under a contract, defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

[1] Respondent (plaintiff) has not favored this court with a brief. Appellant (defendant) seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the evidence does not sustain material findings of fact of the trial court. Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant's brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious. ( Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [ 151 P.2d 887]; Ziegler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [ 126 P.2d 118]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136, 139 et seq. [ 128 P.2d 691]. Cf., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175, 177 [ 63 P. 176].)

Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial which is a nonappealable order is dismissed.

Moore, P.J., and Wilson, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Berry v. Ryan

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
May 15, 1950
97 Cal.App.2d 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)

In Berry v. Ryan, 97 Cal.App.2d 492, 493 [ 217 P.2d 1015], it is set forth: "Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant's brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious.

Summary of this case from Roth v. Keene
Case details for

Berry v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:C.A. BERRY, Respondent, v. OWEN K. RYAN, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: May 15, 1950

Citations

97 Cal.App.2d 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
217 P.2d 1015

Citing Cases

Smith v. Williams

[9] On appeal defendant has made no effort to support the trial court's ruling sustaining the demurrer to…

Slaughter v. Zimman

It is conceded that the children were minors. Therefore the adult defendants as parents were liable for such…