Fischer v. Bergson (1874) · DecisionDepot

Fischer v. Bergson

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 3,869Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the decedent's self-serving declarations regarding his ownership status and the nature of the conveyance, as such statements were inadmissible hearsay.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting declarations of the decedent regarding his ownership of the land and the nature of the conveyance to the defendant.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The District Court should have sustained the objection to proof of the declarations of Kuchel, that he occupied the land as owner, and that the conveyance to Bergson was in fact a mortgage.”

“These declarations were not in disparagement of the title of the declarant. They were not offered by the defendant, but by the plaintiff himself to strengthen his own claim.”

Synopsis

Declarations as Evidence.—The administrator of an estate, who brings an action against one claiming land adversely to the estate, to quiet the title thereto, and to obtain a conveyance thereof to the estate, cannot introduce in evidence the declarations of his intestate, made during his life time, to strengthen his own claim of title.

By the Court, McKinstry, J.: The District Court should have sustained the objection to proof of the declarations of Kuchel, that he occupied the land as owner, and that the conveyance to Bergson was in fact a mortgage. These declarations were not in disparagement of the title of the declarant. They were not offered by the defendant, but by the plaintiff himself to strengthen his own claim. They had no greater force as evidence than they would have had, had the decedent brought this action in his life-time, in which case the inadmissibility of such declarations would be apparent.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and cause remanded.

Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.

Fischer v. Bergson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief