Gardner v. Dennison

California Supreme Court Mar 2, 1895 No. No. 19456Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the order denying a new trial, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court's evidentiary and instructional rulings did not constitute prejudicial error.

Issues

Whether the verdict was justified by the evidence despite conflicting testimony regarding the agreed-upon wage rate.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard evidence concerning the title or selection of a lot.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a private partnership settlement between defendants to which the plaintiff was not a party.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is true there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the wages to be paid, but that introduced by the plaintiff was direct and positive, and was sufficient, if believed, as it must have been, to meet all the requirements”

“The effort was to prove matters to which the plaintiff was not a party, and which occurred without his knowledge or hearing. This being so, proof of them was not admissible”

“The record discloses no prejudicial error, and the order appealed from should be affirmed.”

Synopsis

Appeal—Review of Conflicting Evidence—Instruction—Burden of Proof—Preponderance of Evidence.—Where the evidence is conflicting, and that introduced by the plaintiff is sufficient, if believed, to support a verdict for the plaintiff, the appellate court will not disturb the verdict on the ground that the jury disobeyed an instruction that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence.

Id.—Action for Wages—Evidence—Purchase of Lot from Defendant— Instruction as to Issues—Harmless Error.—In an action to recover wages, where there was a dispute as to the amount of wages, and it appeared in evidence that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase a lot from one of the defendants, and that one-half of his wages should be applied monthly in payment thereof, and the questions as to the lot arose incidentally in the effort to show that plaintiff was to be paid the amount of wages claimed by him, and the court correctly instructed the jury as to what the issues were that they were to consider and pass upon, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, at the request of the defendant, that there was no issue as to the title to the lot, or as to what lot was selected by the plaintiff is not prejudical error.

Id.—Inadmissible Evidence—Amount of Wages—Settlement of Partnership Accounts—Absence of Plaintiff.—Evidence of a settlement of the partnership accounts between the partners and as to the amount of the wages of plaintiff settled in the partnership accounts, the plaintiff not being a party to the settlement, is not admissible against the plaintiff, upon the issue as to the amount of his wages.

Belcher, C. The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of seven hundred and seventy-one dollars, balance of account alleged to be due for -work, labor, and services done and performed by him for defendants, between the fifth day of August, 1889, and the fifth day of August, 1891, under an agreement by them to pay him fifty dollars per month for such labor and services.

The answer denied that defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum named in the complaint, or in any sum whatever; denied that they ever agreed to pay plaintiff fifty dollars per month, or any sum greater than forty dollars per month; and alleged that the plaintiff had been paid in full for all services rendered to and all indebtedness held by him against them, or either of them. The answer further, by way of counterclaim, alleged that prior to the commencement of the action plaintiff was indebted to defendants in the sum of four hundred and twelve dollars and forty-two cents for balance of a mutual and running account between them, after allowing him the full amount of his wages at forty dollars per month, and that said amount was past due and plaintiff had paid no part thereof.

The case was tried before a jury, and the verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff for the sum prayed for in his complaint.

The defendants moved for a new trial on a statement of the case, and, after a hearing, the court required the plaintiff to remit from the judgment the sum of one hundred dollars, which was done. The court then denied the motion, and from that order the defendants appeal.

The court instructed the jury in effect that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants were indebted to him, but that they were not bound to decide the case in [192]conformity with the testimony of the greater number of witnesses; that the question was, taking all the testimony of all the witnesses before them, which was entitled to the greater weight, and that they were to decide in conformity with the most credible evidence and that which they believed entitled to the greatest weight, considering all the facts and circumstances shown.

The appellants contend that the jury disobeyed the first part of this instruction, because the decided preponderance of the evidence as to the amount which was to be paid plaintiff for wages was in their favor, and hence that the verdict was not only contrary to the instructions of the court, but was not justified by the evidence.

Gardner v. Dennison

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief