Dalton v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. (1908) · DecisionDepot

Dalton v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jan 31, 1908 No. Civ. No. 424.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs never executed the release document as pleaded by the defendant was supported by sufficient evidence, rendering the issue of fraud in the procurement of the document immaterial.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs did not execute the release document as pleaded by the defendant.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding cross-examination regarding a third party's interest in the litigation.
Whether the defendant was entitled to a credit on the judgment for payments made to the plaintiffs that were not pleaded as a set-off.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instrument signed was not the instrument set out in the answer, and there is ample evidence to justify the eourl in finding that the instrument set out as a release was never executed by either of the plaintiffs.”

“The motive of plaintiff, or of any of his advisers, in bringing the action was of no consequence, if the right of action existed.”

Synopsis

¡APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from orders denying a new trial as to each of the respondents. G. A. Gibbs, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Bieknell, Gibson, Trask, Dunn & Crutcher, and Norman S. Sterry, for Appellant.

SHAW, J.

Action for damages for personal injuries.

As a result of defendant’s negligence plaintiffs were injured in an electric car collision while riding as passengers on defendant’s railway. They brought separate suits for damages. In each case defendant filed its answer admitting the negligence charged, but denying that plaintiffs sustained any injuries; and as a further defense pleaded a settlement and release in writing with each plaintiff whereby defendant paid to each of them, and they each accepted, $25 in full payment and satisfaction of all claims and demands of every kind and nature, and especially from all claims and demands resulting from the accident in question, copies of which receipts and claimed releases were set out in eacti. answer.

By affidavit filed under section 448 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs averred that said alleged releases and receipts were not genuine and denied the execution of the same.

The court rendered judgment in favor of Martin Dalton for $250, and for J. W. Dalton in the sum of $100. Defendant moved for new trials; these motions were denied; from which orders and judgments defendant prosecutes these appeals.

[512]

The questions involved are practically the same in each case and they come here on one record.

The evidence on the part of plaintiffs shows that they signed a receipt wherein none of the blanks had been filled and which was in the following form:

“PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY CO.

“$...... Los Angeles, Cal.,................190____

“To .................................Dr.

“Address,......................

“Received of the Pacific Electric Railway Company, a corporation, the sum of .......... dollars, in full payment and satisfaction of all claims and demands of every kind and nature which I now have, or ever have had, against said Pacific Electric Railway Company; and especially from all claims and demands against said Company occasioned, or in any manner arising or growing out of an accident which occurred on or about the.... day of........190____at or near

Dalton v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief