Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Stewart v. Silva

California Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1923No. S. F. No. 10415Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Concurrence

LENNON, J., Concurring.

I concur in the conclusion of Mr. Justice Wilbur, which results in a reversal of the judgment in this case, primarily for the reason that it is the general rule that the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of a witness tending to establish, an issuable fact in the ease may not be arbitrarily disregarded by the trial court. (Hayward v. Rogers, 62 Cal. 348, 372; Gage v. Billing, 12 Cal. App. 688 [108 Pac. 664], 10 Cal. Jur., p. 1143.) To the contrary, such testimony must be accepted as proof of the fact which it is offered to establish unless it can be said that such…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hynes v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  2. Gage v. BillingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  3. Hayward v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Williams v. CovillaudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  5. Hutchison v. HollandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API