Case Name: ORAN P. CREMER et al., Respondents, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants; ORAN P. CREMER, Respondent, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1934-03-27
Citations: 137 Cal. App. 566
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8292
Parties: ORAN P. CREMER et al., Respondents, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants. ORAN P. CREMER, Respondent, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 8292.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
March 27, 1934.]
ORAN P. CREMER et al., Respondents, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants. ORAN P. CREMER, Respondent, v. ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.
George L. Greer and Russell H. Pray for Appellants.
Lasher B. Gallagher for Respondents.

Opinion:
HAHN, J., pro tem.
Defendants appeal from a consolidated judgment rendered against them in two actions arising out of an automobile accident and which by stipulation were tried at the same time. Both appeals, by stipulation, are before us on the same record.
In support of their contentions for a reversal of the judgments appellants urge:
1st. That the evidence does not support the implied finding of the jury that the defendants were negligent, but does show conclusively as a matter of law that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence. 2d. That the court committed reversible error in the matter of giving certain instructions requested by plaintiffs.
The record clearly shows a marked conflict in the evidence on several material matters. That this court may not, under such circumstances, interfere with the judgment is too well established to require further comment.
Nor is there merit in the point that the trial court committed error in the instructions given. We have examined the instructions given and are satisfied that as a whole they correctly state the law applicable to the case.
Judgments are affirmed.
Stephens, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.