Wickersham v. Johnston
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. It was error for the court to admit in evidence what purported to be a copy of the judicial record of a foreign country, as it was authenticated in accordance with the provisions of section 1906 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies only to original records. (See Code Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. It was error for the court to admit in evidence what purported to be a copy of the judicial record of a foreign country, as it was authenticated in accordance with the provisions of section 1906 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies only to original records. (See Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1906,1907; Practice Act, sec. 451.) The judgment should be reversed because of the failure of the plaintiff to plead or prove the laws of Great Britain defining the mode of appointment,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
The plaintiff brought three actions-against the defendant, each upon a promissory note-made by the defendant to one John' Lancaster, since deceased, who was a British subject and a resident of-England, where he died testate on the 21st of April, 1884. The three actions were by the consent of parties- and an order of the court consolidated. The court rendered judgment for plaintiff for the amount of the principal and interest of said three notes, with costs, etc. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
The judgment of the lower court went upon the theory, founded upon the findings, that the two…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Norris v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Monroe v. . DouglassNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Young v. RosenbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Ferguson v. HarwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- DeYoung v. DeYoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Logan v. ForsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Ryan v. North Alaska Salmon Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Christ v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.