Schurtz v. Romer
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Upon the trial of the case, the counsel for defendant Romer objected to the examination of the witness Gottschalk, who had testified that he was attorney for Romer in another matter, and had acted as his friend in respect to the transfer of property in question, without a retainer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Upon the trial of the case, the counsel for defendant Romer objected to the examination of the witness Gottschalk, who had testified that he was attorney for Romer in another matter, and had acted as his friend in respect to the transfer of property in question, without a retainer. The objection was stated as follows: “We now claim and deny the consent of Max Romer for Mr. Gottschalk to testify in this case as to what occurred with relation to the negotiations, or the part that he took…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
The action is indebitatus assumpsit, by the plaintiff Schurtz against the defendants Romer and Kerkow. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for a new trial denied, and this appeal is taken by the defendant Romer from the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial.
On a separate appeal taken by the defendant Kerkow, 81 Cal. 244, this court held that the findings were suffi*476cient to sustain the judgment. As to the defendant Bomer, there was a cross-complaint asking for affirmative relief, to which there was an answer, raising issues not directly raised under the answer of Kerkow. But as to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Schurtz v. RomerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Noonan v. OrtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Noonan v. McNabWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bradford Investment Co. v. JoostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Ambrose v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Peterson v. ChaixCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907