Meyer v. Roth
VICTOR MEYER v. P. N. ROTH and EDMUND ROTH
- Area
- civil
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
By the Court:
The reporter’s notes of the evidence of the witness Yale, given at the former trial, should not have been admitted. It was shown that the witness was at the time of the trial a resident of the State, living in an adjoining county.
Conceding that he was beyond the reach of a subpoena, which does not clearly appear, this fact would not authorize the admission of this evidence. We construe the provision of the Code (subd. 8, sec. 1870, Code Civ. Proc.) as merely a repetition of the rule of evidence theretofore existing, and the words “a witness out of the jurisdiction,” as meaning without the State, and so beyond the reach of any process of our courts compelling his testimony.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Cited by
- Long v. California-Western States Life Insurance L. A. 23318 · 1955-02-01
- Gordon v. Nichols Civ. 16232 · 1948-07-06
- Estate of Hampton Civ. 2846 · 1942-11-16
- Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co. L. A. No. 4901. · 1919-06-13
- Reid v. Reid No. 11789 · 1887-08-19