Bell v. Knowles
45 Cal. 193
Opinion
1. The objection to the admissibility of certain evidence, now made here for the first time, cannot prevail. Had it been made and insisted upon at the trial, which it was not, [195] an amendment of the complaint would, no doubt, have been directed.
2. Upon the issues determined by the judgment the evidence is of such a character that we will not disturb the judgment.
3. There is nothing in the point as to the rate of interest named in the judgment. '
Judgment and order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bell v. Knowles, 45 Cal. 193 (Cal. 1873).
45 Cal. 193 (Bell v. Knowles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Newhouse v. Upchurch
22 Cal. App. 3d 204 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
King v. Bender
116 F. 813 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)
Walsh v. Erwin
115 F. 531 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1902)
Cushing v. Pires
57 P. 572 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Kofoed v. Gordon
54 P. 1115 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Thornton
117 Ala. 274 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1897)
Aulbach v. Dahler
43 P. 322 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1896)
North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins
54 N.W. 593 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Yik Hon v. Spring Valley Water Works
4 P. 666 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Atherton v. Fowler
46 Cal. 320 (California Supreme Court, 1873)