Meyer v. Roth

51 Cal. 582
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1877·No. No. 5029·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The reporter’s notes of the evidence of the witness Yale, given at the former trial, should not have been admitted. It was shown that the witness was at the time of the trial a resident of the State, living in an adjoining county.

Conceding that he was beyond the reach of a subpoena, which does not clearly appear, this fact would not authorize the admission of this evidence. We construe the provision of the Code (subd. 8, sec. 1870, Code Civ. Proc.) as merely a repetition of the rule of evidence theretofore existing, and the words “a witness out of the jurisdiction,” as meaning without the State, and so beyond the reach of any process of our courts compelling his testimony.

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

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

Meyer v. Roth, 51 Cal. 582 (Cal. 1877).

51 Cal. 582 (Meyer v. Roth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Long v. California-Western States Life Insurance
279 P.2d 43 (California Supreme Court, 1955)
Gordon v. Nichols
195 P.2d 444 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Estate of Hampton
131 P.2d 565 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co.
182 P. 32 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Reynolds v. Fitzpatrick
72 P. 510 (Montana Supreme Court, 1903)
Reid v. Reid
14 P. 781 (California Supreme Court, 1887)