Case Name: TYLER et al. v. DAVIS
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1892-12-01
Citations: 3 Cal. Unrep. 670
Docket Number: No. 13,551
Parties: TYLER et al. v. DAVIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 3
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
TYLER et al. v. DAVIS.
No. 13,551;
December 1, 1892.
31 Pac. 1125.
Work and Labor—Sufficiency of Findings.—Where the court found that plaintiff had rendered services worth a stated amount, and that they had been paid a named sum, the finding sufficiently made it appear that only the amount named had been paid, and defendant could not object that it did not support a judgment for the difference.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; John Hunt, Judge.
Action by William B. Tyler and another against George 0. Davis to recover for legal services performed by plaintiffs for defendant. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The answer denied every allegation of the complaint, and set forth two affirmative defenses: (1) That the services alleged to have been rendered were in fact rendered for, and on employment by, one M. H. McDonald, the real party in interest in the cause mentioned in the complaint; (2) that all legal services rendered for defendant by either of the plaintiffs were rendered by plaintiff George W. Tyler, individually, upon a certain contract therein set forth, and that said “plaintiff has been paid in full for all services performed in said cause for defendants.” The findings are as follows: “ (1) That George 0. Davis employed the plaintiff to defend the suit of Smith v. Davis, as alleged in the complaint, which service they accepted and performed, and their services in that behalf were reasonably worth the sum of $1,000; (2) that plaintiff did not make the agreement set forth in the answer of defendant, but plaintiff George W. Tyler was indebted to the firm of Cope & Davis, at the time of their employment, in the sum of $180, and Mrs. M. H. McDonald, as agent for defendant, paid to plaintiffs, since said employment, the sum of four hundred and five ($405) dollars, making in all $585, which is a proper offset against the claim of plaintiffs.” Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and against defendant, for $415, principal, and $58.50, costs of suit.
D. H. Whittemore, Wm. H. Sears and James G. Maguire for appellant; John D. Sullivan for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The findings in this case are, in our opinion, sufficient to support the judgment. The evidence is embodied in a bill of exceptions, and no claim was made by-defendant upon the trial that anything more was in fact paid plaintiffs than is found by the court. The finding in regard to the amount paid to plaintiffs is to be construed as a finding that only the sum mentioned therein had been paid. Judgment and order affirmed.