Harris v. Sutherland , 3 Cal. Unrep. 34 ( 1888 )

FOOTE, C.

This case turns upon the point as to whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant the court below in finding that a certain instrument in writing made by the plaintiff to Sutherland, the defendant, was intended to be a deed, and not a mortgage. The evidence is conflicting, and the finding should be upheld. We advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.