Seabridge v. McAdam

6 Citing cases

  1. Albertson v. Raboff

    185 Cal.App.2d 372 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 21 times
    Underlying action sought a lien on real property

    [4] Where the evidence is in conflict or subject to different inferences as to whether there was a full, fair and complete disclosure to the attorney of all of the facts of the case within the knowledge of the client or as to whether the client acted in good faith on the advice of the attorney, it is for the trier of fact to resolve such conflict or draw the credible inferences. ( Seabridge v. McAdam, 108 Cal. 345, 349-350 [41 P. 409]; Portman v. Keegan, 31 Cal.App.2d 30, 36 [ 87 P.2d 400]; Torney v. Petersen, 109 Cal.App. 560, 565 [ 293 P. 653].) [5] On appeal, the findings of the trier of fact as to such matters will not be disturbed unless it can be held that they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

  2. Portman v. Keegan

    31 Cal.App.2d 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 10 times
    In Portman v. Keegan (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 30, 34 [ 87 P.2d 400], the jury returned a verdict that only resolved the cross-complaint, while entirely omitting the issues raised by the complaint.

    While this is a well-recognized defense in an action of this character bearing on the question of good faith and want of probable cause, the question whether or not such disclosure was made in a fair, full and complete manner was one for the jury. ( Starkweather v. Eddy, 210 Cal. 483 [ 292 P. 467]; Seabridge v. McAdam, 108 Cal. 345 [41 P. 409].) In the Starkweather case plaintiff was occupying a cabin on premises claimed by defendant.

  3. Perry v. Washington National Insurance Co.

    14 Cal.App.2d 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 10 times

    From such misstatements malice might be inferred, the question being one for the jury. ( Lacey v. Porter, 103 Cal. 597 [ 37 P. 635]; Seabridge v. McAdam, 108 Cal. 345 [ 41 P. 409]; Burke v. Watts, 188 Cal. 118 [ 204 P. 578]; Franzen v. Shenk, supra; Torney v. Petersen, 109 Cal.App. 560 [ 293 P. 653].) These issues were also submitted to and passed upon by the jury; and their verdict thereon, being for the plaintiff upon conflicting evidence, is conclusive.

  4. Torney v. Petersen

    109 Cal.App. 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 5 times

    ( Griswold v. Griswold, 143 Cal. 617 [ 77 P. 672].) [3] Whether the prosecution was malicious ( Lacey v. Porter, supra) or a party has fully and fairly communicated to counsel all the material facts which he knew ( Seabridge v. McAdam, 108 Cal. 345 [41 P. 409]) or acted in good faith upon the advice received ( Potter v. Seale, 8 Cal. 217; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222 [27 Am. St. Rep. 174, 28 P. 937]; Murphy v. Davids, 181 Cal. 706 [ 186 P. 143]) are questions for the jury. And where on the question of probable cause the evidence is conflicting, or different inferences might be drawn from the evidence, it is the province of the jury to determine whether or not the facts sustain an inference of probable cause ( Franzen v. Shenk, 192 Cal. 572 [ 221 P. 932]). [4] Here the evidence was such that these questions were properly submitted to the jury and we are satisfied from the facts and circumstances shown that their implied findings thereon are fully sustained.

  5. Dunnington v. Loeser

    48 Okla. 636 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 22 times

    And we think that view is in harmony with the great weight of authority. Ewing v. Sanford, 19 Ala. 605; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 28 P. 937, 27 Am. St. Rep. 174; Davis v. Pacific Telephone Telegraph Co., 127 Cal. 312, 57 P. 764, 59 P. 698; Seabridge v. McAdam, 108 Cal. 345, 41 P. 409; Smith v. Liverpool, etc., Insurance Co., 107 Cal. 432, 40 P. 540; Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86, 44 P. 776; Angelo v. Faul, 85 Ill. 106; Knapp v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Iowa, 532, 85 N.W. 769. Again, the petition for rehearing complains that this court "overlooked the exception in the case of Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187 [25 L.Ed. 116]."

  6. Gould v. Adams

    108 Cal. 365 (Cal. 1895)   Cited 10 times

    Appellant complains that the court failed to find upon certain specified issues of fact, but, in view of the facts found, those issues were immaterial. A finding on each of them in favor of the plaintiff would not have necessitated [41 P. 409] any change in the judgment rendered.          It is further contended that the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to strike out defendant's answer on the alleged ground that the amended answer is inconsistent with the original answer, in that the latter avers, and the former denies, that the deed from Wise to Adams was delivered.