Gordon v. Searing

California Supreme Court

Gordon v. Searing

8 Cal. 49, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 288

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 Cal. 49 (Gordon v. Searing) 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

Gordon v. Searing, 8 Cal. 49, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 288 (Cal. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Murray C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The appellant contends that the Court below erred in admitting secondary evidence of the contents of a deed, and that the loss or absence of the original was not sufficiently accounted for. The plaintiff traced the paper to the hands of a person not in the State. This has always been held a sufficient predicate for the admission of secondary evidence, .because the party in whose possession the paper is supposed to be, or was last seen, being beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, it has no power to compel his attendance, or the production of the paper.

Another alleged error is the order in which the Court permitted the testimony to be introduced on the trial. This is always a matter of discretion, and the plaintiff having made out his case, it is not regarded as material in what particular order he established the frets by his evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Murray C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The appellant contends that the Court below erred in admitting secondary evidence of the contents of a deed, and that the loss or absence of the original was not sufficiently accounted for. The plaintiff traced the paper to the hands of a person not in the State. This has always been held a sufficient predicate for the admission of secondary evidence, .because the party in whose possession the paper is supposed to be, or was last seen, being beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, it has no power to compel his attendance, or the production of the paper.

Another alleged error is the order in which the Court permitted the testimony to be introduced on the trial. This is always a matter of discretion, and the plaintiff having made out his case, it is not regarded as material in what particular order he established the frets by his evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cal. 49, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-searing-cal-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack