McFadden v. Mitchell

California Supreme Court

McFadden v. Mitchell

61 Cal. 148, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 567

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 27, 1882

DocketNo. 8,175

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 Cal. 148 (McFadden v. Mitchell) 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

McFadden v. Mitchell, 61 Cal. 148, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 567 (Cal. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

The objection to the introduction of the bill of sale in evidence, on the ground that there had been no proof of its delivery, was properly overruled. (C. C., § 1,055).

For the purpose of proving the due execution of the bill of sale the witness Allen was asked: “ Whose signature is that at the bottom of the instrument?” and he answered: “That is [149]*149mine. I wrote it. I was then in Sonora, Mexico.” The rule is well settled that on cross-examination the witness could only be examined as to matters to which he had been examined on his examination in chief; and the questions which appellant’s counsel on cross-examination put to the witness, and to which objections were sustained by the Court, did not relate to matters concerning which the witness had been examined at that time by the party calling him. We therefore think that the objections were properly sustained.

We think that the witness Howard was shown to be sufficiently skilled in the unwritten law of Mexico to render him competent to testify to what it was.

It does not appear to us that there is any error in the rulings of the Court upon the motions to strike out testimony, and we can not reverse the judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, because, in our opinion, it is clearly conflicting upon all the material issues in the case.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

The Court:

The objection to the introduction of the bill of sale in evidence, on the ground that there had been no proof of its delivery, was properly overruled. (C. C., § 1,055).

For the purpose of proving the due execution of the bill of sale the witness Allen was asked: “ Whose signature is that at the bottom of the instrument?” and he answered: “That is [149]*149mine. I wrote it. I was then in Sonora, Mexico.” The rule is well settled that on cross-examination the witness could only be examined as to matters to which he had been examined on his examination in chief; and the questions which appellant’s counsel on cross-examination put to the witness, and to which objections were sustained by the Court, did not relate to matters concerning which the witness had been examined at that time by the party calling him. We therefore think that the objections were properly sustained.

We think that the witness Howard was shown to be sufficiently skilled in the unwritten law of Mexico to render him competent to testify to what it was.

It does not appear to us that there is any error in the rulings of the Court upon the motions to strike out testimony, and we can not reverse the judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, because, in our opinion, it is clearly conflicting upon all the material issues in the case.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Cal. 148, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-mitchell-cal-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack