Hart v. Vidal

6 Cal. 56
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1856·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

. The count is for services rendered as attorney at law in the case of Brown v. Vidal. Upon the trial, "evidence was admitted against the objection of defendant to prove the value of services in the case of New-land v. Keane.

The proofs in every case must correspond with the allegations. A [57] recovery in this case would be no bar to another action for the services rendered in the case of Newland v. Keane. The evidence should therefore have been excluded.

Newland was an incompetent witness to prove the value of Hart’s legal services. He was not a lawyer, and therefore not such an expert as the rules of evidence admit.

For these errors the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Hart v. Vidal, 6 Cal. 56 (Cal. 1856).

6 Cal. 56 (Hart v. Vidal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ghirardelli v. Peninsula Properties Co.
107 P.2d 41 (California Supreme Court, 1940)
Kentucky & West Virginia Power Co. v. Howes
56 S.W.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Martin v. Duncan Automobile Co.
296 P. 24 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1931)
Coco-Cola Co. v. Moore
256 F. 640 (Eighth Circuit, 1919)
Kappler v. Storm
1915 OK 895 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
American Railroad v. Municipal Court
16 P.R. 227 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1910)
Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Burgess
1908 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Heblich v. Slater
66 A. 655 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Sanders v. Graves
105 F. 849 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana, 1901)
Howell v. Smith
66 N.W. 218 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)