Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 671

Taylor v. Clark

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1875

California Supreme Court · decided 1875-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, County of Tuba.</p> <p>Ejectment to recover nine twentieths undivided in certain mining claims in Tuba county. Both parties claimed title under Lyman King. The plaintiff proved by King that he owned the demanded premises, and went into possession of the same prior to 1860. He then introduced a deed to him from King, dated January 4, 1866. The defendants called as a witness one of their number, L. B. Clark, who testified that King sold him the demanded premises and gave him a written conveyance, in April, 1862, and that the conveyance was lost; that he did not know the conveyance was lost till December, 1865, when he looked through all his papers, safe, pigeon-holes, and house for it, and could not find it, and that he sold to the Pittsburgh Company, in December, 1865, and delivered to the Company all his papers. The defendants constituted the Pittsburgh and Tuba Eiver Mining Company. The defendants then offered to prove the contents -of the conveyance, but the plaintiff objected because its loss had not been shown, and that no foundation had been laid for the same. The Court overruled the objection, and permitted evidence of its contents to be introduced.</p> <p>The defendants recovered judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1953

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court:

¶1The Court below erred in permitting parol proof of the contents of the alleged written transfer by King to Clark, claimed to have been made in April, 1862. The search for this paper made by Clark was first made by him in December, 1865; the particular day of that month upon which the search was made is not stated. Clark sold to the Pittsburgh Company in that month, and testified that he then delivered all his papers to that company.

¶2The defendants should have shown an unsuccessful search among the papers of that company before resorting to parol proof of the contents of the lost paper.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

/49/cal/671 · .json · Public domain