Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cal. 383

Dye v. Bailey

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1852

California Supreme Court · decided 1852-10-15

After the jury were sworn, &c. in this cause in the District Court, the plaintiffs offered to read as evidence upon the trial the notice and the accompanying depositions of Elisha Anthony, Edward P. Penfield, Charles Yan Pelt and Silas H. Bennett, and the certificates thereto appended; to the reading of which defendants objected on the ground that the notice was insufficient; that the depositions of Anthony Penfield and Yan Pelt were taken on a day different from that in the…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1969

3 state decisions

10185218601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Murray, Justice.

¶1On the trial of this cause, the plaintiff read in evidence certain depositions, which were objected to by the defendant, on the ground that the certificate of the officer before whom they were taken, was not in conformity with the statute, and that the depositions did not show that they were taken upon the day.of notice.

¶2We have before decided that this mode of taking testimony to be used in civil causes, is in derogation of the common law, and that the officer must follow the statute strictly. Every requisition of the statute ifiust appear upon the deposition, to entitle it to admission. In this case the certificate of the officer is defective, and the depositions should have been excluded.

¶3It is contended by the respondent, however, that the objections were not taken in time; that the exceptions should have been filed before the time of trial.'

¶4There is nothing in the statute, which renders this necessary, and in the absence of statutory provision or an exp ress rule of Court upon the subject, the objection can be made at any time before the depositions are read in evidence.

¶5We have carefully examined the facts of this case, with the view of sustaining the judgment of the Court below, without the *385assistance of this evidence, but are unable to do so without usurping the province of a jury.

¶6Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

/2/cal/383 · .json · Public domain