Gray v. Garrison

California Supreme Court

Gray v. Garrison

9 Cal. 325

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The demand in suit was assignable, and its transfer gave a right of action in the name of the assignee. The assignor was a competent witness, and his testimony should have been admitted. The action is not brought for an unliquidated demand, and is not, therefore, embraced within the exception contained in the concluding clause of the fourth section of the Practice Act.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The demand in suit was assignable, and its transfer gave a right of action in the name of the assignee. The assignor was a competent witness, and his testimony should have been admitted. The action is not brought for an unliquidated demand, and is not, therefore, embraced within the exception contained in the concluding clause of the fourth section of the Practice Act.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Gray v. Garrison, 9 Cal. 325 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

9 Cal. 325 (Gray v. Garrison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related