Gordon v. Searing

8 Cal. 49, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 288
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1857·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

8 Cal. 49 (Gordon v. Searing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson v. Gough
202 P. 196 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Zellerbach v. Allenberg
33 P. 786 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Wiseman v. N. P. R. R.
26 P. 272 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1891)
Vogel v. . the Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.
92 N.Y. 10 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Bagley v. Eaton
10 Cal. 126 (California Supreme Court, 1858)