Sandell v. Sherman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
Action for the malicious prosecution of an application in the superior court to have a guardian appointed of the estate of Catherine Sandell, the female plaintiff.
Defendants had a verdict and judgment, from which judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial plaintiffs appeal.
The first error assigned by appellant is based upon an alleged abuse of discretion by the court at the trial in excusing Margaret C. Broeder from further testifying *393while under cross-examination and before the same was completed.
Mrs. Broeder, the witness, was one of the defendants in the case,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ball v. RawlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Grant v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Harkrader v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Levy v. BrannanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Holliday v. HollidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Franzen v. ShenkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Haydel v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- El Reno Gas & Electric Co. v. SpurgeonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.