Bell v. Knowles
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff declared for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to defendants, and for money had and received by defendants to plaintiff’s use. The testimony, which was admitted without objection, showed that the indebtedness arose out of goods delivered . by the plaintiff to the defendant Cowper, to be sold on commission. The plaintiff recovered judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff declared for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to defendants, and for money had and received by defendants to plaintiff’s use. The testimony, which was admitted without objection, showed that the indebtedness arose out of goods delivered . by the plaintiff to the defendant Cowper, to be sold on commission. The plaintiff recovered judgment. The defendant moved for a'new trial, and in his statement assigned as a reason why a new trial'should be granted, that the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
1. The objection to the admissibility of certain evidence, now made here for the first time, cannot prevail. Had it been made and insisted upon at the trial, which it was not, *195an amendment of the complaint would, no doubt, have been directed.
2. Upon the issues determined by the judgment the evidence is of such a character that we will not disturb the judgment.
3. There is nothing in the point as to the rate of interest named in the judgment. '
Judgment and order affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kofoed v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Cushing v. PiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Aulbach v. DahlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1896
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Yik Hon v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.