Smith v. East Branch Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Nineteenth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Wheeler, J. The statement on motion for new trial is confined to setting forth the ruling and exception referred to in the opinion, and contains no formal specification of errors. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:
This is an action to recover the value of work, labor, and services rendered by plaintiff for defendant as mining superintendent. The answer is a general denial. Evidence was given that the services were rendered as general superintendent of defendant’s mines, ditches, flumes, and works, and in supervising the construction of and in constructing a water-ditch; and while one Martin, a witness for defendant, was being examined, the defendant offered to show that the work of constructing the ditch was not well done, which offer, with the ruling and exception, were as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chamberlin v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moore v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Palmer v. McMasterMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- Schroeder v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887