Case Name: MABEL L. SHULTZ, Appellant, v. MISS L. O'ROURKE et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1934-10-30
Citations: 1 Cal. App. 2d 647
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8002
Parties: MABEL L. SHULTZ, Appellant, v. MISS L. O’ROURKE et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 8002.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
October 30, 1934.]
MABEL L. SHULTZ, Appellant, v. MISS L. O’ROURKE et al., Respondents.
John J. McMahon for Appellant.
Holland & Holland and Kenneth D. Holland for Respondents.

Opinion:
YORK, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered herein in favor of the defendants. The evidence and pleadings are in a very involved state, as are the briefs of the parties filed herein. The question raised by appellant is one that is answered by the general rule that where there is any evidence to support a finding, an appellate court cannot set up its judgment in lieu of that of the trial court. This is so as to the objections made by appellant to each of the findings to which he takes exception.
No appeal lies from an order denying motion for a new trial, therefore the appeal from that order is dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.
Conrey, P. J., concurred.
Houser, J., concurred in the judgment.