Case Name: J. E. BLANC, Respondent, v. GEORGES DE LATOUR, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1917-08-31
Citations: 34 Cal. App. 512
Docket Number: Civ. No. 2120
Parties: J. E. BLANC, Respondent, v. GEORGES DE LATOUR, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 2120.
First Appellate District.
August 31, 1917.]
J. E. BLANC, Respondent, v. GEORGES DE LATOUR, Appellant.
Promissory Note — Conflict of Evidence — Appeal.—Where in an action on a promissory note the evidence is conflicting on the issues framed by the pleadings, the findings and judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George E. Crothers, Judge. . •
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Sterling Carr, for Appellant.
P. A. Bergerot, and A. P. Dessouslavy, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This action was brought to recover the amount of a note for $586.87, dated June 27, 1914, and payable ninety days thereafter, executed by defendant to plaintiff. Its execution, delivery, and nonpayment are not denied, but defendant in his answer alleges that the note was given in part payment of the purchase price of a stock of goods in New York City, in which transaction the plaintiff falsely represented that he had purchased said stock of goods for the benefit of the defendant, paying therefor a certain sum, when in fact he had paid for it some one thousand five hundred dollars less than the sum represented. It is also alleged in the defendant's pleading that the note was without consideration.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, in his answer to the cross-complaint, denies that the note was without consideration, or that any fraud was practiced upon the defendant in the transaction concerning the purchase and sale of said stock of goods. He also avers that the note formed no part of that transaction, but was given as evidence of an indebtedness between the parties which sprang from an entirely different business dealing.
As to the issues in the case thus framed by the pleadings it is sufficient to say that while there is evidence in the record to support defendant's view of the case, on the other hand there is also evidence to sustain plaintiff's contention. This latter the trial court adopted. Being based upon conflicting evidence, this appellate court, under the rule well settled in this state, will not interfere with such court's finding and its appropriate judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.