Schultz v. McLean (1888) · DecisionDepot

Schultz v. McLean

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

California Supreme Court Jun 19, 1888 No. No. 11150Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it was error to admit testimony from a party's attorney regarding prior statements made by the party to the attorney, as such statements constitute inadmissible self-serving evidence. Additionally, the court held that a judgment is improper where it fails to dispose of the case as to all named defendants.

Issues

Whether a party's prior statements to their own attorney are admissible as evidence.
Whether a judgment is valid when it fails to dispose of the case as to all defendants.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If such a statement is admissible, a party can make evidence for himself.”

“The court should have passed on the cause as to all the defendants.”

Synopsis

Evidence — Hearsay. — The declarations of a party to his counsel before suit brought, not made in the presence of the opposite party, are not admissible in evidence in his behalf, for the purpose of showing that the statement thus made was the same as that made by him as a witness upon the stand.

Judgment. —The court should pass on the cause as to all of the defendants; and it is error to render final judgment without rendering a judgment either against or in favor of one of the defendants.

Thornton, J. The court below erred in allowing the-following question to be put by plaintiffs to Waymire,, their attorney in this case, who was called by them:.: “What statement did Schultz make to you in regard to-the contract which was made between him and McLeam at the time he first consulted you in regard to this suit!;, and before you draughted the complaint? I want to know whether the statement made to you was the same statement made here on the stand.”

And also erred in admitting the answer to the foregoing question.

Schultz went to Waymire and made the statement inquired about to him in regard to his case. Neither of the defendants was present when this statement was made. If such a statement is admissible, a party can make evidence for himself. For what reason or on what ground the court admitted it we cannot conjecture.

For the foregoing error, the judgment and order denying a new trial must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

No judgment has been entered or rendered either against or in favor of defendant Robinson. The cause is not then disposed of as to him. (Diggins v. Reay, 54 Cal. 526.) The court should have passed on the cause as to all the defendants.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded.

McFarland, J., Searls, C. J., McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstbin, J., concurred.

Schultz v. McLean

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief