Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Cal. 548

Heath v. Scott

California Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1884

California Supreme Court · decided 1884-08-28

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of San Joaquin, and from an order refusing a new trial.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-08-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1969

12 state decisions

40188418901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Ross, J., concurring.

¶1Whatever cause of action, if any, there is set out in the complaint, is founded on the alleged fact that the money for which the note was given was obtained by defendant from the plaintiffs by means of false representations, *553and upon this question the finding of the jury, upon evidence substantially conflicting, was against the plaintiffs. The objections to the question put to the witness Leets were properly overruled. Conceding that ordinarily a witness must himself have been a resident of the same neighborhood with the person concerning whose reputation he is asked, such requirement was answered in the case of the. witness Leets. Upon the other objection I agree with what is said by Me. Justice McKee, and I also agree with him in what is said upon the question of the alleged surprise.

McKinstry, J., concurring.

¶2I concur in the conclusions announced by Justices McKee and Ross, and in the judgment. I add that, in my opinion, the complaint does not contain a statement of a cause of action.

/65/cal/548 · .json · Public domain