Sparks v. Kohler
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The complaint stated, that the defendants, on the 3d May, 1850, by the names of T. D. Kohler & Co., for value received, made and delivered their promissory note to James Hagan, wherein they promised to pay to the said Hagan, $3030 for cash lent; that said Hagan on the 11th December, 1851, for value received, endorsed and delivered the said promissory note to the plaintiff; that the whole of said note, principal and interest, is due…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The complaint stated, that the defendants, on the 3d May, 1850, by the names of T. D. Kohler & Co., for value received, made and delivered their promissory note to James Hagan, wherein they promised to pay to the said Hagan, $3030 for cash lent; that said Hagan on the 11th December, 1851, for value received, endorsed and delivered the said promissory note to the plaintiff; that the whole of said note, principal and interest, is due and unpaid. Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment for the said sum of $3030 and interest. David C. Broderick answered…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
As has been frequently determined in cases heretofore, we cannot revise the finding of the jury upon the facts.
The only question for consideration, is whether the District Court erred, in refusing to allow the two defendants to give evidence for each other.
Section 423 of the Practice Act, declares, “ A party may be examined on the part of his co-plaintiff, or co-defendant; but the examination thus taken shall not be used on behalf of the party examined, except as against the examining party.”
The defendants answered separately. The issue raised by the answer of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fairchild v. AmsbaughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863