Martinez v. Planel

California Supreme Court

Martinez v. Planel

36 Cal. 578

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 36 Cal. 578 (Martinez v. Planel) 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

Martinez v. Planel, 36 Cal. 578 (Cal. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Sanderson, J. :

The'Court below erred in receiving the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor in relation to the fall of the former in the passageway, some six weeks before the injury sustained by the plaintiff, Caroline Diaz Martinez. That was res inter alios acta—a collateral issue, which the defendants could not be required to try in this case. If it was competent for the plaintiffs to prove that other persons had met with like accidents at the same place, it would be competent for the defendants to rebut it, and there would be no end, or might be no end, to the issues to be tried. This rule is too well established to need more than a citation of authorities. (1 Greenlf. on Ev., Sec. 448; Collins v. Inhabitants of Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396; Aldrich v. Inhabitants of Pelham, 1 Gray, 510; Kidder v. Inhabitants of Dunstable, 11 Gray, 342; C. P. R. R. of C. v. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247; Clark v. Willet, 35 Cal. 534; People v. Taylor, ante 36.)

The order of the Court below denying the-defendants’ motion for a new trial is reversed, and a new trial granted, and remittitur directed to issue forthwith.

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

By the Court, Sanderson, J. :

The'Court below erred in receiving the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor in relation to the fall of the former in the passageway, some six weeks before the injury sustained by the plaintiff, Caroline Diaz Martinez. That was res inter alios acta—a collateral issue, which the defendants could not be required to try in this case. If it was competent for the plaintiffs to prove that other persons had met with like accidents at the same place, it would be competent for the defendants to rebut it, and there would be no end, or might be no end, to the issues to be tried. This rule is too well established to need more than a citation of authorities. (1 Greenlf. on Ev., Sec. 448; Collins v. Inhabitants of Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396; Aldrich v. Inhabitants of Pelham, 1 Gray, 510; Kidder v. Inhabitants of Dunstable, 11 Gray, 342; C. P. R. R. of C. v. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247; Clark v. Willet, 35 Cal. 534; People v. Taylor, ante 36.)

The order of the Court below denying the-defendants’ motion for a new trial is reversed, and a new trial granted, and remittitur directed to issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Cal. 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-planel-cal-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack