Wilbur v. Kemp

2 Citing cases

  1. Beck v. Weather-Vane Corp.

    185 Cal.App.2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 8 times

    This general finding is sufficient. ( Wilbur v. Kemp, 80 Cal.App.2d 787, 789 [ 182 P.2d 206]. See also 2 Witkin, California Procedure, § 114, pp. 1846-1847.

  2. Kalmus v. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital

    132 Cal.App.2d 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 11 times

    [2] And it has been held repeatedly that findings couched in such general terms as paragraphs IX and X herein are sufficient. (See Gale v. Bradbury, 116 Cal. 39, 40 [ 47 P. 778]; County of San Diego v. Seifert, 97 Cal. 594, 597 [ 32 P. 644]; Estate of Scherer, 58 Cal.App.2d 133, 138-139 [ 136 P.2d 103]; Bole v. Lovejoy, 138 Cal.App. 211, 215 [ 31 P.2d 1074]; Wilbur v. Kemp, 80 Cal.App.2d 787, 789 [ 182 P.2d 206]; Rohl v. Van Cleve, 90 Cal.App.2d 317, 322 [ 202 P.2d 807]; Silver v. Shemanski, 89 Cal.App.2d 520, 542 [ 201 P.2d 418]; Witkin on California Procedure, §§ 114-115, pp. 1846-1848.) [3] Concerning findings in form similar to those at bar the court said in Chatfield v. Continental Bldg. Loan Assn., 6 Cal.App. 665, 669 [ 92 P. 1040]: "And where the court, in such a case, makes a general finding, we do not think it is wholly lost because the court also undertakes to make, in addition to the general finding, certain specific findings upon facts covered by the general finding.