ESTATE OF COWELL, 169 Cal. 156 (1915)

146 P. 425

In the Matter of the Estate of ERNEST V. COWELL, Deceased. J. VALENTE, Petitioner and Respondent; S.H. COWELL et al., Appellants.

S.F. No. 7015.Supreme Court of California, Department One.
January 22, 1915.

APPEAL from a decree of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco making partial distribution of the estate of a deceased person. Thos. F. Graham, Judge.

The facts involved in this appeal are similar to those stated in the opinions in Estate of Cowell, 167 Cal. 222, 228.

Mastick Partridge, for Appellants.

Eugene D. Sullivan, for Respondent.

At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring:

The record in this case presents an appeal by certain heirs of Ernest V. Cowell, deceased, from an order of partial distribution of the estate of Ernest V. Cowell, distributing to Valente one thousand dollars under the sixth clause of the will. That clause has been before this court heretofore in the Estate of Cowell on the application of Minkel, reported in 167 Cal. 229, [139 P. 84]. The legal questions arising under the will have all been settled in that case and in the case preceding it in the same volume. The only question presented here is whether or not Mr. Valente had been an employee of The Henry Cowell Lime and Cement Company for three years or more preceding January 1, 1911,

Page 157

the date fixed in the will. It is a mere question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding, and of course the rule is too well known to require more than the statement that whenever the evidence is in conflict this court cannot interfere with the finding of the court below, if the conflict is substantial. Taking this evidence as a whole, there is ample circumstantial evidence in connection with the evidence of Mr. Valente to justify a finding that Mr. Valente was an employee of The Henry Cowell Lime and Cement Company for more than three years preceding the date stated. While there is other evidence that might have justified a contrary decision, the court was not obliged to believe that evidence in the face of the facts established by the circumstantial evidence and the evidence of Valente. It is not necessary to state the evidence more fully. The conclusion of the court is that the evidence justified the conclusion of the court below on that ground. The order is affirmed.