
    STRAUS v. WILLIAMSON et al.
    No. 12,483;
    June 1, 1888.
    18 Pac. 432.
    Appeal—Conflicting Evidence.—In an Action to Amend a Mortgage on the ground of mistake, and to foreclose the mortgage as amended, a judgment for defendant upon a finding that no mistake occurred, will not be disturbed on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding when the evidence on the material points of the ease is conflicting.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County; D. S. Gregory, Judge.
    Action, by J. Straus against A. Williamson and J. H. Orcutt, to have the description in a mortgage made by defendant Williamson reformed so as to embrace property other than that described in the mortgage, on the ground of mistake, and, when so reformed, to foreclose the same. The defendant
    
      Orcutt was made a party because he was a grantee of the land intended to be described in the mortgage, subsequent to its making. Judgment went for plaintiff, against Williamson, for the money secured by the mortgage; but the court below refused to reform the mortgage, and found against „ plaintiff as to the alleged mistake. Prom this judgment, and an order refusing him a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
    J. M. Wileoxón for appellant; W. H. Spencer and V. A. Gregg for respondents.
   Per CURIAM.

The contention of appellant in this ease is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision. We find, on an examination of the record, that the evidence is conflicting on the material points, and therefore the judgment and order must be affirmed. So ordered.  