Thornton v. Hook
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County. Bogart was the owner of a team, consisting of horses, wagon, and harness. He was at the same time indebted to Fisher & Fisher in the sum of about six hundred dollars. Bogart met one Hichols at Virginia City, in the State of Hevada, to which place Bogart had been hauling goods from Sacramento.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County. Bogart was the owner of a team, consisting of horses, wagon, and harness. He was at the same time indebted to Fisher & Fisher in the sum of about six hundred dollars. Bogart met one Hichols at Virginia City, in the State of Hevada, to which place Bogart had been hauling goods from Sacramento. This was in June, 1864. Bogart informed Hichols that he was afraid his creditors would attach his team if he returned to Sacramento; and it was then agreed between him and Hichols that a fictitious sale of the property should be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J. :
It is not always easy to determine the precise point beyond which a cross examination should not be allowed to proceed. The general rules upon the subject are plain enough; but *228the difficulty lies in the just application of them to given cases. Thus it is well settled that a witness cannot be cross examined, if objection is made, except as to facts and circumstances connected with matters testified to by him on his direct examination. But it is sometimes difficult to say whether a given fact or circumstance is connected with a matter previously stated by him in…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
- In Re Bryan's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1933
- Roche v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Harrington v. Butte & Boston Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1897
- Watrous v. CunninghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.