gno.law

San Francisco Commercial Agency v. Howard H. Hogan Co.

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 373. · 1907-09-10 · Published · 92 P. 312 · 6 Cal. App. 408

SAN FRANCISCO COMMERCIAL AGENCY, Appellant, v. HOWARD H. HOGAN COMPANY, Respondent

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
Trial judge
J. C. B. Hebbard
Outcome
affirmed — order are affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Hall (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Hall

HALL, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $530.97 for merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiff’s assignor to defendant. Defendant admitted the sum of $200 to he unpaid, and for this sum plaintiff obtained judgment. The appeal is by plaintiff, and the only matter urged for a reversal of the judgment and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is the action of the court in refusing to admit in evidence on behalf of plaintiff a charred sheet from the ledger kept by plaintiff’s assignor. No attempt is made in the bill of exceptions to state the contents of-the sheet other than it was the account of defendant. Where written evidence is offered and refused, the contents of the writing, or so much thereof as is necessary to show that error has been committed, should be set forth in the bill of exceptions. In the absence of any such statement the court cannot determine that the lower court erred in rejecting such offered evidence, or that the appellant was injured thereby.

(Dwinelle v. Henriquez, 1 Cal. 387;

Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27;

Dyer v. Leach, 91 Cal. 191, [25 Am. St. Rep. 171, 27 Pac. 598];

Kurtz v. Forquer, 94 Cal. 91, [29 Pac. 413].)

For this reason the judment and order are affirmed.

Cooper, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by