Turner v. McIlhaney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Yuba. This was an action upon two promissory notes, in which the plaintiff obtained judgment against all the defendants except the defendant Hooper, who had a verdict and judgment in his favor, from which the plaintiff appealed. The only question in the case, as between the plaintiff and Hooper, was, whether the latter was a member of the firm at the time the notes were executed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Yuba. This was an action upon two promissory notes, in which the plaintiff obtained judgment against all the defendants except the defendant Hooper, who had a verdict and judgment in his favor, from which the plaintiff appealed. The only question in the case, as between the plaintiff and Hooper, was, whether the latter was a member of the firm at the time the notes were executed. On the trial in the Court below, the defendant Hooper, introduced a witness, to whom his counsel propounded this question: “ Please state,…
1Opinion of the Court
Burnett, J., after stating the facts in the case, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
It is the general rule that a witness must state facts, and not opinions, inferences, or conclusions. The exceptions to this rule are few, and relate mostly, if not entirely, to the opinion of experts in reference to questions of science and skill. This, however, was not a case of that kind.
In answer to this point, the learned counsel for the defendant Hooper, insist that such testimony is admissible to prove partnership. “ A partnership,” they say, “ may be proved by common report or…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McClenahan v. KeyesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Helms v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Cross v. Burlington National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Territory of Wyoming v. ConleyWyoming Supreme Court · 1880