Conner v. Stanley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This action was tried by a jury, and the evidence before them warranted their verdict. The instructions given by the court fully and fairly stated the law of the case, and there is no objection urged on this score by the counsel for the appellant in their brief; the evidence, except as hereinafter stated, was properly submitted to the jury.
But the trial court against the plaintiff’s objection allowed the following questions to be propounded to the witness Van Den Mark, and to be answered by him: “ Q. —State whether Mr. Jarvis was competent to make a contract with a person that he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Walker v. Walker'sSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
3Cited by12 opinions
- Estate of SextonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Sim v. WeeksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Kreuzberger v. WingfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- In re the Estate of TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Waniorek v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.