Court Opinion

ID: 9553182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:24:46.498645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:10.919881
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
The majority opinion does not give proper effect to the extrinsic evidence which the jury found adequate in con*785struing the contract as requiring that water be supplied for a fish hatchery.
When this case was before the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Mr. Justice Schottky of that court prepared a very able and learned opinion which adequately disposes of all of the issues in this case, which opinion was concurred in by Presiding Justice Van Dyke and Mr. Justice Peek of that court. The District Court of Appeal in said opinion held that the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It reversed the judgment with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict. The opinion of the District Court of Appeal is reported in 265 P.2d at page 530. I am in full accord with the views expressed by the District Court of Appeal in said opinion and I adopt the same as my dissent.
Shenk, J., concurred.