Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WHITTLE v. DOTY.
    No. 11,170;
    August 31, 1886.
    12 Pac. 299.
    Appeal—Findings not Contradictory—Material Issues Covered. Where, on appeal from a judgment in a cause tried by the court without a jury, the findings are not contradictory, and cover all the material issues presented therein, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, Amador County.
    The plaintiff in his complaint, for a second cause of action, which is the one considered on this appeal, alleged that he was the owner in fee of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 23, in township No. 7 north of range No. 9 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, situated in the county of Amador and state of California. The defendant answered, and claimed an interest adversely to the plaintiff in and to the following portion of said land, to wit: Commencing at the northwest corner of said subdivision, and running thence east, along the northern boundary thereof, to the northeast corner thereof; thence south, about nine and one-half rods, to a fence crossing said subdivision from east to west; thence west eighty rods, along said fence, to the western boundary of said subdivision; thence north seven and one-half rods, to the place of beginning—said piece of land containing four and one-quarter acres more or less. The plaintiff claimed that the claim of the defendant was without right, and prayed that he might be enjoined from asserting any claim whatever to the premises adverse to himself. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and, in accordance with its findings of facts, entered a judgment for the plaintiff, quieting in him the title to the land, and restraining the defendant from setting up any claim thereto. The defendant contended that the findings were contradictory, and failed to cover the material issues; but the court entered up its judgment, and defendant appealed.
    Eagon & Armstrong for appellant, Doty; Blanchard & Swisler for respondent, Whittle.
   By the COURT.

The findings are not contradictory, and they cover all the material issues. Judgment affirmed.