McDermott v. Mitchell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the tenth day of July, 1866, the defendant Mitchell brought an action against A. M. Dibble and John S. Morris, to recover possession of a quantity of wheat and barley, or the value thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the tenth day of July, 1866, the defendant Mitchell brought an action against A. M. Dibble and John S. Morris, to recover possession of a quantity of wheat and barley, or the value thereof. The writ was placed in the hands of W. 0. Middleton, the sheriff, who took the property, and while he held it, S. R. Ellsworth claimed it, and Mitchell, as principal, and A. J. Hahn and E. W. Root, as sureties, executed to the sheriff an indemnity bond, who thereupon delivered the property to Mitchell. Ellsworth…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
1. The answer filed in the case of Brock v. Mitchell and Root was not admissible in evidence against Mitchell in this action. True, it was the joint answer of Boot and Mitchell in that action, verified by Boot—but not verified by Mitchell . As to the latter, it was the mere work of the attorney, and, therefore, not admissible as evidence against the client in another action.
2. We understand the answer in the action of Brock v. Mitchell and Root to have been the only evidence offered to prove that the defendant procured the plaintiffs to execute the undertaking on appeal, or to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Duff v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Kamm v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Lynch v. KupferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Weismantle v. PetrosWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1942