Coogan Finance Corp. v. Beatcher

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1932 No. Docket No. 7031.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party who has rendered services is competent to testify as to their reasonable value, and that a trial court has discretion to alter the order of argument for special reasons under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues

Whether a defendant is competent to testify as to the reasonable value of his own services.
Whether a party may present a hypothetical question to a jury based solely on their own theory of the case.
Whether the trial court has discretion to permit a defendant to open and close the argument.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“One who has rendered services to another may give evidence of the value of such services, although it appears that the witness has qualified himself for that purpose by inquiring of others adequately informed on the subject.”

“Respondent had a right to submit to the jury, by hypothetical question, his theory of the case, without adopting any part or parcel of appellant’s theory.”

“It cannot be doubted that the last-quoted portion of the section modifies and limits its succeeding subdivision, and permits the court for special reasons to alter the usual course of argument.”

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The plaintiff brought action against defendant to recover the sum of $3,300, interest and attorney’s fees. The complaint contained two counts, the first being based upon a promissory note in the sum of $2,000 and the second being for money advanced to defendant in the sum of $1300. Defendant answered admitting all the allegations of the first count and admitting the receipt of the $1300 mentioned in the second count. However, as affirmative defense and also by way of counterclaim, he alleged services rendered by him to the plaintiff corporation for which it agreed to pay the reasonable value in the sum of $13,000, of which only the sum of $1300 had been paid. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict of the jury in favor of defendant in the sum of $2,922.17 and costs. The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from that judgment.

The first contention of appellant is that the court erred in admitting opinion testimony of the witness and defendant Beatcher as to the value “of a man as manager of an automobile finance concern” having the capital and borrowing capacity of the plaintiff. The objection that the witness was not qualified to answer the question, it having been shown that he had previously acted as manager for another concern and had been told by others what they were receiving for acting in a similar capacity, may very shortly be answered by the observation that the witness was entitled to place a value upon his own services. In

Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

Palmer, 55

Neb. 559 [76 N.

169, 170], it is said: “One who has rendered services to another may give evidence of the value of such services, although it appears that the witness has qualified himself for that purpose by inquiring of others adequately informed on the subject. . . . And Earl, J., delivering the opinion of the court in

Mercer

Vose,

67 N. Y. 56, said: ‘I can conceive of no case where one has himself rendered a service to another when he will not be competent to give evidence of its value.

[281]

Coogan Finance Corp. v. Beatcher

AI Brief

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief