Ross v. Brusie
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Bill to redeem. It was claimed by the plaintiff that a conveyance of land made by deed absolute upon its face was intended as a mortgage. This was denied by the defendant. At the trial the defendant aslced the plaintiff, who was a witness, the question recited in the opinion. The conversations sought to be proved were of a date subsequent to the execution of the deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Bill to redeem. It was claimed by the plaintiff that a conveyance of land made by deed absolute upon its face was intended as a mortgage. This was denied by the defendant. At the trial the defendant aslced the plaintiff, who was a witness, the question recited in the opinion. The conversations sought to be proved were of a date subsequent to the execution of the deed. The court sustained an objection to the question upon the ground that conversations subsequent to the execution of the…
1Per curiam
are of opinion that the court erred in sustaining the objection on the ground of incompetency to the following question put to the plaintiff while testifying: “ Did you at any time within three years have any conversation with the defendant relative to the execution of this deed and bond?”
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.
Hearing in Bank denied.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vance v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Wagg v. HerbertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
- Harp v. HarpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902