Case Name: W. E. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. THE BANK & TRUST CO., a Corporation, and W. H. RALPH, Respondents
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1914-06-23
Citations: 26 Idaho 201
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. E. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. THE BANK & TRUST CO., a Corporation, and W. H. RALPH, Respondents.
Judges: Ailshie, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
(June 23, 1914.)
W. E. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. THE BANK & TRUST CO., a Corporation, and W. H. RALPH, Respondents.
[141 Pac. 1102.]
Evidence — Sufficiency of.
1. Seld, that the evidence is sufficient to support the findings.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, in and for Nez Perce County. Hon. E. C. Steele, Judge.
Action to have certain conveyances of real estate and certain transfers of personal property canceled and held for naught. Judgment for defendants.
Affirmed.
C. T. McDonald and J. S. McDonald, for Appellant, cite no authorities on point decided.
James E. Babb, for Respondents.
If the court should find even that there is only a substantial controversy in the evidence as to whether the findings made by the court below are true, it would be necessary to affirm the judgment, since an appellate court will not reverse findings of fact of the lower court where there is a substantial controversy in the evidence, even though the appellate court may believe the court below was wrong. (Dearwig v. HocJcersmith, 25 Ida. 140, 136 Pac. 994, syllabus No. 5, and eases cited.)

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, J.
This action was brought to have certain deeds to real property and transfers of personal property which were executed by the appellant to the defendant bank set aside and canceled, and the ground relied upon for such relief was duress in the execution of said deeds and the transfer of said personal property.
The issues being joined by the answer, the cause was tried by the court and findings of fact made and judgment entered in favor of the defendants.
Several errors are assigned, but the main error is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.
Upon an examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that it is amply sufficient to sustain the findings and that no prejudicial errors at law were committed by the court in the trial of the case.
The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs of this appeal in favor of the respondents.
Ailshie, C. J., concurs.