(Download) "Clewett v. Clewett" by Second Appellate District, Division Two District Court Of Appeal Of California ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Clewett v. Clewett
- Author : Second Appellate District, Division Two District Court Of Appeal Of California
- Release Date : January 14, 1955
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
[136 CalApp2d Page 914] Defendant husband appeals from an interlocutory judgment of divorce which was granted upon the ground of extreme cruelty.
Under a claim of insufficiency of the evidence appellant's counsel argues the weight of the same, endeavoring to induce this
court to reweigh it. "Upon an appeal every intendment is to be indulged in which tends to support the judgment (Hinds v. Oriental
Products Co., Inc., 195 Cal. 655, 661 [235 P. 438]) and every reasonable inference which tends to support a finding must be
accepted. (Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal. 2d 221, 223 [143 P.2d 689].) The evidence is to be construed most strongly in favor
of the respondent and all conflicts resolved in support of the verdict. (Patten & Davies Lbr. Co. v. McConville, 219
Cal. 161, 164 [25 P.2d 429].) And where appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the jury
the rule is that, 'Such contention requires defendants to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support the
challenged findings.' (Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal. 2d 598, 600 [197 P.2d 550].) (Emphasis added.) It is said in Crawford
v. Southern Pac. Co., 3 Cal. 2d 427, 429 [45 P.2d 183], that: 'It is an elementary, but often overlooked principle of law,
that when a verdict is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins [136 CalApp2d Page 915] and
ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support
the conclusion reached by the jury. When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court
is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court." (Hartzell v. Myall, 115 Cal. App. 2d 670, 672
[252 P.2d 676].) To the same effect see Dubosclard v. Dubosclard, 112 Cal. App. 2d 342, 343 [246 P.2d 124]. That this is especially
true with respect to the issue of extreme cruelty appears from numerous decisions exemplified by Polk v. Polk, 50 Cal. App.
2d 653 [123 P.2d 550]; Ganann v. Ganann, 109 Cal. App. 2d 346 [240 P.2d 722]; Margolis v. Margolis, 115 Cal. App. 2d 131 [251
P.2d 396]; Fleming v. Fleming, 95 Cal. 430 [30 P. 566, 29 Am.St.Rep. 124]; Bixby v. Bixby, 120 Cal. App. 2d 495 [261 P.2d
286].
 "Clewett v. Clewett" by Second Appellate District, Division Two District Court Of Appeal Of California ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}