Baum v. Reay

California Supreme Court

Baum v. Reay

31 P. 561, 96 Cal. 462, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 978

California Supreme Court·Decided November 22, 1892·No. No. 14208·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

The Court.

— This cause was heard and decided in Department One. We are satisfied with the views therein expressed and the conclusion reached; but in support of the ruling of the court below in excluding the inventory offered in evidence by the defendant, we cite the follow[465] ing cases: Leighton v. Wike, 4 Serg. & R. 204; Aelclen’s Executor v. Hickman, 63 Ala. 494. The rule in New York has been changed (Guy v. Mead, 22 N. Y. 466); but our code seems to indorse the rule followed in Pennsylvania and Alabama, and which formerly prevailed in New York. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2047.)

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court.

— This cause was heard and decided in Department One. We are satisfied with the views therein expressed and the conclusion reached; but in support of the ruling of the court below in excluding the inventory offered in evidence by the defendant, we cite the follow[465] ing cases: Leighton v. Wike, 4 Serg. & R. 204; Aelclen’s Executor v. Hickman, 63 Ala. 494. The rule in New York has been changed (Guy v. Mead, 22 N. Y. 466); but our code seems to indorse the rule followed in Pennsylvania and Alabama, and which formerly prevailed in New York. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2047.)

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Baum v. Reay, 31 P. 561, 96 Cal. 462, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 978 (Cal. 1892).

Pincite

31 P. 561 (Baum v. Reay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related