Offer v. McMillan

Annotate this Case
[Civ. No. 7920. Third Dist. Jan. 23, 1951.]

KARL OFFER et al., Appellants, v. MABEL V. McMILLAN et al., Respondents.


Darold D. De Coe and Norman R. Samuelsen for Appellants.

Wilke & Fleury for Respondents.


DEIRUP, J. pro tem.

[1] The plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action for damages for fraud. Counsel for appellants concede that the findings are supported by evidence but contend that, as indicated by his written opinion, the trial judge required clear and convincing evidence rather than a mere preponderance of the evidence for proof of fraud, and that this constituted [101 Cal. App. 2d 841] error. There is no basis for a discussion of this point, for we cannot take the opinion into account. "The findings and conclusions constitute the final decision of the court and an oral or written opinion cannot be resorted to for the purpose of impeaching or gainsaying the findings and judgment." (Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co., 71 Cal. App. 2d 777, 781 [163 P.2d 756].)

The judgment is affirmed. Appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Adams, P. J., and Peek, J., concurred.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.