McDermott v. Mitchell

47 Cal. 249
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·No. No. 4,068·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

1. The answer filed in the case of Brock v. Mitchell and Root was not admissible in evidence against Mitchell in this action. True, it was the joint answer of Boot and Mitchell in that action, verified by Boot—but not verified by Mitchell . As to the latter, it was the mere work of the attorney, and, therefore, not admissible as evidence against the client in another action.

2. We understand the answer in the action of Brock v. Mitchell and Root to have been the only evidence offered to prove that the defendant procured the plaintiffs to execute the undertaking on appeal, or to prove that Mitchell directed or requested Middleton to take an appeal in the Ellsworth case, and it being inadmissible-for that purpose, the judgment cannot be supported.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

McDermott v. Mitchell, 47 Cal. 249 (Cal. 1874).

47 Cal. 249 (McDermott v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weismantle v. Petros
19 S.E.2d 594 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1942)
Lynch v. Kupfer
26 P.2d 33 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Kamm v. Bank of California
15 P. 765 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Duff v. Duff
12 P. 570 (California Supreme Court, 1886)