Crane, Hastings & Co. v. Gloster
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. The facts are stated in the opinion. The testimony of defendant in his own behalf was inadmissible, tbe plaintiffs being the representatives of a deceased person. (Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 34; Kishing v. Shaw, 33 Cal. 446; Satlerlee v. Bliss, 36 Cal. 512; 1 Comp. Laws, sec. 1440; Roney v. Buelclancl, 4 Nev. 45.)
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Beatty, J.:
The plaintiffs are surviving partners of one J. J. Hayes, and sue in that character. The defendant pleaded a counterclaim, and on the trial in the district court was permitted, against the objection of the plaintiffs, to testify that Hayes, during his life-time, had employed him as traveling salesman for the firm at a salary of two hundred dollars a month, besides a commission on such goods as he might sell. According to his testimony, the firm became indebted to him for three months’ services in a sum considerably exceeding the amount collected by him on account of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Davis v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Carlton, Chamberlain & Co. v. MaysWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1875
- Roney v. BucklandNevada Supreme Court · 1868
- Tremper v. ConklinNew York Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pellegrini v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2001
- McKay v. Board of Sup'rs of Carson CityNevada Supreme Court · 1986
- Gage v. PhillipsNevada Supreme Court · 1891
- Schwartz v. StockNevada Supreme Court · 1901
- Bright v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.