Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifth District. Plaintiff had judgment below. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
This is a suit by a corporation to recover damages for the diversion of water from a certain ditch or canal, belonging to the plaintiff. On the trial of the case, one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff, stated on his voir dire, that he owned at the commencement of the suit a number of shares of the stock of the corporation, but had sold and transferred the same soon after the suit was commenced. The competency of this witness is the only question necessary to be considered. The objection to his competency is based upon the ground of his liability for costs. *■
Under the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Allen v. SewallNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Harger v. McCulloughNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Scott v. LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Marcy v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Campbell v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Mitchell v. BeckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Nebraska National Bank v. WalshSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Robinson v. BidwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- McDonnell v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Young v. RosenbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.