Fallon v. Dougherty

12 Cal. 104
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1859
StatusPublished

This text of 12 Cal. 104 (Fallon v. Dougherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fallon v. Dougherty, 12 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Field, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

This case must be reversed for want of sufficient preliminary proof of the inability of the plaintiff to produce the original deed from Sutter to Hammersly, through whom she deraigns title to the premises in controversy, to authorize the admission of the record copy. The evidence introduced only shows a search by the agent of the plaintiff and inquiry of Hammersly. It does not appear that the plaintiff herself has not the possession or control of the original. Her affidavit, in the absence of other evidence, should have been offered on the point. Laws of 1857, chap. 254, sec. 2; Macy v. Goodwin, 6 Cal. 581; Hensley v. Tarpey, 7 Cal. 288 ; Bagley v. Eaton, 10 Cal. 147.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Related

In Re Hatch
73 P.2d 885 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
Hensley v. Tarpey
7 Cal. 288 (California Supreme Court, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Cal. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fallon-v-dougherty-cal-1859.