Crook v. Forsyth
30 Cal. 662
Opinion
A new trial was asked for below on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the Court on the merits.
The burden of proof under the issues jóined was upon the [663]*663defendant, and his testimony was so far inconsistent with itself that the Court, acting advisedly, could not, in our judgment, have come to any other conclusion than it did. There was a conflict in the testimony, and it was all the more fatal for being intestine.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sanderson expressed no opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Crook v. Forsyth, 30 Cal. 662 (Cal. 1866).
30 Cal. 662 (Crook v. Forsyth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anglo American Land Co. v. Sundberg
225 P. 874 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Dorris v. McManus
87 P. 287 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Mattock v. Goughnour
28 P. 301 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
Brock v. Pearson
25 P. 963 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
McLennan v. Bank of California
25 P. 760 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
People ex rel. Love v. Center
6 P. 481 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Goldberg v. Taylor
2 Utah 486 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)
Blasdel v. Williams
9 Nev. 161 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1874)
Crow v. Hildreth
39 Cal. 618 (California Supreme Court, 1870)