Ehrenreich v. Shelton

• Decision Date: 26 February 1963
• Citation: 213 Cal.App.2d 376,28 Cal.Rptr. 855
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Frederick H. B. EHRENREICH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. Dominic SHELTON, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 7045.

Page 855

28 Cal.Rptr. 855

213 Cal.App.2d 376

Frederick H. B. EHRENREICH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. Dominic SHELTON, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 7045.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Feb. 26, 1963.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1963.

Hearing Denied April 24, 1963.

Thompson & Colegate, by Don C. Brown, Riverside, for plaintiff and appellant.

Herbert C. Schulze, Riverside, for defendant and respondent.

MONROE, Justice pro tem.

The plaintiff and appellant brought an action to recover the sum of $20,000 upon a written instrument dated May 22, 1959, signed by plaintiff.

This instrument, although informally worded, is in effect a non-negotiable promissory note. The defendant admitted the execution and consideration of the note but denied that there was anything due thereon. The defense was based upon the contention that agreement entered into by the parties on May 26, 1959 constituted a novation and therefore all liability upon the note had been terminated. The court found this issue in favor of the defendant and respondent and denied recovery to the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

The main question confronting the court on this appeal is plaintiff's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings and judgment, it being contended further that the court mistakenly placed the burden of proof upon the plaintiff.

The evidence was in sharp and irreconcilable conflict. Ordinarily this court would be bound by the oft-repeated rule that where there is substantial evidence to support the judgment, the findings and judgment of the trial court are determinative.

It is true, however that the trial court was apparently under a misapprehension as to the burden of proof. After the trial a minute order was made in which it was stated, among other things,

'* * * On plaintiff's complaint, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proof, and that the documents attached to defendant's Answer and introduced in evidence represent the final agreement of the parties.' Finding No. 14 was as follows: 'That the Plaintiff's evidence was inclusive and insufficient to sustain the burden of proof and that Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Defendant was indebted to Plaintiff.'

It was admitted that at the time of the execution of the note the plaintiff paid over to the defendant the sum of $20,000.00. The execution of the note was admitted. No part of the $20,000 was ever repaid. Therefore, the only issue was whether the defense of novation had been established. The burden of establishing that defense was upon the defendant.

'The burden of proof of existence of a novation is on the party asserting it.' (36 Cal.Jur.2d 451.)

This rule has been repeatedly recognized in the State of California. In Alexander v. Angel, 37 Cal.2d 856, 860, 236 P.2d 561, the court has carefully reviewed the California cases and other authorities in support of this rule. See also Colley v. Chowchilla Nat. Bank, 200 Cal. 760, 767, 770, 255 P. 188, 52 A.L.R. 569; Ayoob v. Ayoob, 74 Cal.App.2d 236, 250, 168 P.2d 462; Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Wallace, 58 Cal.App. 625, 209 P. 78; Linder Hdw. Co. v. Pacific Sugar Corp., 17 Cal.App. 81, 118 P. 785, 789; Brown v. Coffee, 17 Cal.App. 381, 121 P. 309, 311; Williams v. Reed, 113 Cal.App.2d 195, 248 P.2d 147.

It is a general rule, of course, that the judgment of a trial court will not be disturbed even though in arriving at that judgment the trial court may rely upon erroneous reasoning. (3 Cal.Jur.2d 651.) It is held in this state that although the reasons reflected in an opinion of the trial court are not ordinarily effective to disturb the final judgment, nevertheless the Appellate Court may inspect that opinion in order to determine the processes of reasoning by which the trial court arrived at the result. (Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co., 3 Cal.2d 740, 47 P.2d 273; Arvin-Kern Co. v. B. J. Service Inc., 178 Cal.App.2d 783, 793, 3 Cal.Rptr. 238.) In a number of cases, however, it has been held that where the record reflects that in arriving at the result of which appellant complains, the trial court relied upon erroneous reasoning and except for that reliance would probably not have reached such result, then a judgment may properly be reversed. (Moore v. Ojai Improvement Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 124, 128, 313 P.2d 47; People v. Robarge, 41 Cal.2d 628, 262 P.2d 14; Smith v. Fetterhoff, 140 Cal.App.2d 471, 295 P.2d 474; Taylor v. Bunnell, 211 Cal. 601, 296 P. 288.)

In the instant case the erroneous conclusion of the trial court that the burden of proof remained upon the plaintiff was reflected not only in the minutes of the court but was actually included in the findings themselves. The seriousness of this error is readily determined by a brief consideration of the evidence.

The evidence reveals that on May 22, 1959, the plaintiff paid over the sum of $20,000 to the defendant in connection with the proposed formation of a corporation. The plan was that the corporation would engage in the business of applying plastic coatings to articles by the use of spray guns. One of the proposed purposes was to coat the interior of tank cars.

As originally signed on May 22, the language of the instrument sued upon was considerably different from the language finally contained therein. It appears that on May 26, four days later, the parties had a meeting, together with defendant's attorney. In the course of their discussion it developed that the original language of the writing did not reflect the actual intent of the parties and thereupon the attorney, in the presence of both parties, altered the language with a pen and as so altered the instrument was initialed and approved by both parties. The plaintiff testified that the reason for this alteration was to express their agreement that, unless and until the corporation was actually completed and formed, the defendant should remain liable to repay the $20,000 to the plaintiff. There seems to be no serious dispute as to this matter.

At the same time the attorney caused to be drawn up two written instruments, copies of which are attached to the answer. The first one was entitled, 'Memo of Agreement--Pre-Incorporation Subscription Agreement.' This instrument recites that the...