Meyer v. Roth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Action to recover on a written contract to pay for wool sold. One of the defenses was that the wool was not in a merchantable condition. The trial was in Los Angeles. On the trial, the plaintiff offered to read the evidence of one Yale, as taken down by the reporter on a former trial of the same case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Action to recover on a written contract to pay for wool sold. One of the defenses was that the wool was not in a merchantable condition. The trial was in Los Angeles. On the trial, the plaintiff offered to read the evidence of one Yale, as taken down by the reporter on a former trial of the same case. The defendant objected because it had not been shown that the witness was deceased or out of the jurisdiction of the court. Thereupon the plaintiff proved that the witness then lived in San Jacinto, in the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The reporter’s notes of the evidence of the witness Yale, given at the former trial, should not have been admitted. It was shown that the witness was at the time of the trial a resident of the State, living in an adjoining county.
Conceding that he was beyond the reach of a subpoena, which does not clearly appear, this fact would not authorize the admission of this evidence. We construe the provision of the Code (subd. 8, sec. 1870, Code Civ. Proc.) as merely a repetition of the rule of evidence theretofore existing, and the words “a witness out of the jurisdiction,” as meaning…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Estate of HamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Long v. California-Western States Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Reid v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Reynolds v. FitzpatrickMontana Supreme Court · 1903
- Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.