Graham v. Harmon
Before: Gibson
Synopsis
Appeal — Review of Conflicting Evidence. — When a finding of the court below is based upon conflicting evidence, which is not wholly documentary, and any part of the evidence is sufficient to support the finding, it must be taken as conclusive upon appeal, and cannot be disturbed. Assumpsit — Account — Bill of Particulars—Erroneous Charges and Credits — Explanatory Evidence. — When the bill of particulars furnished in an action upon an account contains certain, erroneous charges and credits which constitute an offset to each other, it is proper to allow the plaintiff to explain the items in the hill of particulars, and to show that such eh irges and credits grew out of the blending of several distinct accounts in one by mistake.
Id. — Correctness of Bill of Particulars — Truth of Items — Exclusion of Evidence. —The plaintiff is only required to furnish a correct copy of his hooks of account in a bill of particulars, when demanded pursuant to section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The truth of the items of the account is the very point in issue, and the penalty of being precluded from giving evidence of the account only applies where the party of whom the copy of the account is demanded in writing refuses to furnish the same.
Gibson, C. Judgment passed for the respondent in this action for $219.77, without costs, which sum consists of $12.10 for services rendered by him to defendants, between the seventeenth and twenty-eighth days of December, 1886, and the remainder for a balance due upon an account between them.
The main question presented for consideration here is, whether the findings of fact are supported by the evidence.
The defendants, who were engaged in the business of [182]conducting a theater and skating-rink in Eureka, .during November and December, 1886, employed' the plaintiff as their manager, whose duty it was to sell tickets of admission to the entertainments and performances given by the defendants, and to pay all the expenses thereof.
Before the trial, defendants, under section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure, demanded of and obtained from plaintiff a copy of the account sued upon, which showed that he had received $1,250.78, and paid out $1,797.63, being $546.85 more than he received.
Among the items charged to the defendants is one for thirty-two dollars for eight days’ services, at four dollars per day, rendered by plaintiff to defendants. These services were declared upon as a separate cause of action in the complaint; to which defendants replied in their answer by denying that such services were worth any greater sum than one dollar and fifty cents per day; and averred that plaintiff agreed with them that in consideration of the exclusive privilege of maintaining a stand in their theater for the sale of cigars, etc., he would render the services for which he seeks compensation in money. On the trial, plaintiff testified that he made no such agreement with the defendants; that he did not have a stand in the theater while he was a manager, but only for a few nights, long prior to his engagement as manager; that there was no understanding or agreement respecting the amount he should receive for his services as manager, but that from four to five dollars per day therefor would be reasonable. That portion of plaintiff’s testimony in which he denies the agreement respecting the privilege of selling cigars, etc., in the theater, was contradicted by defendant Harmon and one of his actresses, who testified that the only compensation he was to receive for his services was the privilege referred to. On this point the court found against the defendants, and in favor of plaintiff, to the extent of $1.50 per day for eight days, as stated in the answer.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)