Rosenbaum v. Hernberg

17 Cal. 602
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. 602 (Rosenbaum v. Hernberg) 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
Rosenbaum v. Hernberg, 17 Cal. 602 (Cal. 1861).

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope; J. concurring.

The only question presented for determination by the record in this case, is whether Hernberg, one of the defendants, was a competent witness for the plaintiffs. The complaint alleges a conspiracy between the defendants to defraud the plaintiffs of certain goods, and that it was successfully carried out by their obtaining and disposing of the property, and asks damages against them all. Hernberg made a voluntary appearance, but interposed no defense. The other defendants answered and joined issue.

We have no doubt of the competency of Hernberg. He was clearly competent under our statute; and we are inclined to the the opinion that he was so at common law, especially as he made no objection to testifying. Under the statute the plaintiff may call any one of the adverse parties to the action where there are several, and they are sued as joint tort-feasors. He is not bound to call all if he call one. (See secs. 392 and 393 of the Civil Prac. Act, as amended in 1854; and secs. 417 and 418; Haddrick v. Heslop, 12 Adol. & Ellis, N. S. 268; Brown v. Marsh, 8 Vt. 310; and Paine v. Tilden, 20 Vt. 554.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Brown v. Marsh
8 Vt. 310 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1836)
Paine v. Tilden
20 Vt. 554 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Cal. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenbaum-v-hernberg-cal-1861.