San Francisco Commercial Agency v. Howard H. Hogan Co.

California Court of Appeal

San Francisco Commercial Agency v. Howard H. Hogan Co.

92 P. 312, 6 Cal. App. 408

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 10, 1907

DocketCiv. No. 373.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 P. 312 (San Francisco Commercial Agency v. Howard H. Hogan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

San Francisco Commercial Agency v. Howard H. Hogan Co., 92 P. 312, 6 Cal. App. 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $530.97 for merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiff’s assignor to defendant. Defendant admitted the sum of $200 to he unpaid, and for this sum plaintiff obtained judgment. The appeal is by plaintiff, and the only matter urged for a reversal of the judgment and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is the action of the court in refusing to admit in evidence on behalf of plaintiff a charred sheet from the ledger kept by plaintiff’s assignor. No attempt is made in the bill of exceptions to state the contents of-the sheet other than it was the account of defendant. Where written evidence is offered and refused, the contents of the writing, or so much thereof as is necessary to show that error has been committed, should be set forth in the bill of exceptions. In the absence of any such statement the court cannot determine that the lower court erred in rejecting such offered evidence, or that the appellant was injured thereby. (Dwinelle v. Henriquez, 1 Cal. 387; Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27; Dyer v. Leach, 91 Cal. 191, [25 Am. St. Rep. 171, 27 Pac. 598]; Kurtz v. Forquer, 94 Cal. 91, [29 Pac. 413].)

For this reason the judment and order are affirmed.

Cooper, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

HALL, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $530.97 for merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiff’s assignor to defendant. Defendant admitted the sum of $200 to he unpaid, and for this sum plaintiff obtained judgment. The appeal is by plaintiff, and the only matter urged for a reversal of the judgment and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is the action of the court in refusing to admit in evidence on behalf of plaintiff a charred sheet from the ledger kept by plaintiff’s assignor. No attempt is made in the bill of exceptions to state the contents of-the sheet other than it was the account of defendant. Where written evidence is offered and refused, the contents of the writing, or so much thereof as is necessary to show that error has been committed, should be set forth in the bill of exceptions. In the absence of any such statement the court cannot determine that the lower court erred in rejecting such offered evidence, or that the appellant was injured thereby. (Dwinelle v. Henriquez, 1 Cal. 387; Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27; Dyer v. Leach, 91 Cal. 191, [25 Am. St. Rep. 171, 27 Pac. 598]; Kurtz v. Forquer, 94 Cal. 91, [29 Pac. 413].)

For this reason the judment and order are affirmed.

Cooper, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 P. 312, 6 Cal. App. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-francisco-commercial-agency-v-howard-h-hogan-co-calctapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack