Young v. Brady
Before: Vanclief
Synopsis
Evidence — Order of Introduction — Admissions of Defendant. —In an action for money loaned, evidence of the admissions of the indebtedness by the defendant should be properly introduced as a part of the plaintiff’s original case, and the rejection of such evidence when offered in rebuttal is not error, if the plaintiff does not ask to be permitted to reopen his case for the purpose of introducing it.
Id.—Impeachment of Witness — Contradictory Statements.—A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of contradictory statements until a proper foundation has been laid for its admission by asking the witness if he had made the statements claimed to be contradictory.
Id. — Immaterial Contradiction. — A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of contradictory statements as to a matter which is wholly irrelevant to any material issue.
Vanclief, C. Action of assumpsit for money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant. Judgment for defendant, from which, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, the plaintiff brings this appeal.
[129]The evidence for plaintiff tends to prove money paid or expended for the defendant, rather than money loaned; but no point is made on this ground. Whether the money had been paid for the defendant, or at his request, and whether he had promised to repay it, were the principal questions contested at the trial. The defendant testified that no money had been paid or expended by plaintiff for him, or at his request. On cross-examination, he testified that he was at plaintiff’s house probably half a dozen times while he was building a house on a piece of public land, which he had entered as a pre-emptioner, in the vicinity of plaintiff’s residence, and that he was at plaintiff’s house on the evening after he entered the land. He was then asked the following question: —
“ Do you recollect having any conversation there with Mr. Young (plaintiff), in the presence of Miss Green, during this time, in reference to how thankful you were that he had secured this claim (the pre-emption claim) for you, and that you were going to reimburse him as soon as you could? A. No, sir; never had such a conversation.”
The plaintiff called Miss Green in rebuttal, who testified that she had lived with plaintiff since she was a child, and recollected the time defendant took possession of the land; that she had heard conversations between plaintiff and defendant at plaintiff’s house, at different times, within ten days after defendant took possession of the land, about that land, or the purchase of land. She was then asked whether, at any of those'times, she heard a conversation between them “in reference to repaying Mr. Young the money Young had advanced .to Mrs. Barton, .... wherein the defendant stated that he was exceedingly thankful to Mr. Young for obtaining for him the land, and that he would endeavor to pay him the money which plaintiff had paid to Mrs. Barton as soon as he possibly could,—at least, by the time he would make his proof upon the land”; and asking the witness to confine herself “ to the conversation in reference to [130]
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)