Watson v. Miller

California Supreme Court Aug 3, 1899 No. S. F. No. 1281Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment and that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error in the court's evidentiary rulings or the overruling of the demurrer.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff's demurrer to the complaint in intervention.
Whether the trial court's findings of fact were sufficient to support the judgment.
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings during the trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order overruling his demurrer is not, therefore, a sufficient ground for reversing the judgment.”

“These findings might have been greatly condensed, but they are clearly sufficient to support the judgment.”

“The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.”

Synopsis

Administrator.—In an Action Against an Administrator, it is not reversible error to overrule a demurrer by plaintiff to the complaint of intervening heirs, when the issues presented are the same as those raised by the answer of the administrator, and judgment must be the same as though the demurrer had been sustained.

Administrator..—In a Suit for $30,000 Against an Administrator for Services performed for testator, a finding that plaintiff performed work, the value of which did not exceed $500; that the deceased did not promise to pay for the services, but they were understood to be gratuitous; and that plaintiff was paid and received the sum of $500 in full payment, is sufficient to support a judgment against plaintiff.

Administrator.—In an Action Against an Administrator for Services performed for deceased, where the complaint alleges that deceased promised to pay for such services, and the answer denies the promise, a finding that deceased did not promise is not outside the issues.

Administrator.—In an Action Against an Administrator, a Former administrator of the same estate was introduced as a witness. In cross-examination the decree of revocation of his letters of administration was introduced, and objected to as not being proper cross-examination and as irrelevant and immaterial, No part of the evidence in chief was set out, and the bill of exceptions did not set out the decree of revocation. Held., that the appellate court cannot pass upon this exception.

Administrator.—In an Action Against an Administrator for Compensation for services performed for testator, evidence that testator had expressed himself as not wishing to go away owing any man anything is immaterial.

Evidence.—Where, on Objection to Testimony, Counsel Introducing it explains that it is part of a conversation introduced by opposing counsel, and the court admits it, and it subsequently turns out to be immaterial, if no motion to strike it out is interposed the prejudiced party cannot complain.

Administrator.—In an Action Against an Administrator for Compensation for services performed for testator, a partner of plaintiff testified that plaintiff told him that he was attending to testator’s affairs. Testator was not present when this statement was made. Defendant’s counsel objected to the evidence, and questioned the witness with the object of showing that he was an interested party, following it by an objection to the testimony, which the court sustained. The testimony already given was not stricken out, nor did plaintiff’s counsel offer any further testimony by this witness. Held, that the appellate court will not reverse, even though the objection was erroneously sustained, as the evidence of the witness was retained, and it cannot be assumed that any further facts would have been proven by him.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff brought this action against the administrator of the estate of A. P. More, deceased, to recover the sum of $30,000, claimed to be the reasonable value of work, labor and services alleged to have been performed by him, for and at the request of said A. P. More, within two years prior to his death. A complaint in intervention was filed by two of the heirs of the deceased, and the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto was overruled. Upon the trial of the cause the court rendered judgment against the plaintiff, from which, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, he has appealed.

1. Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the complaint of the interveners; .that an heir is not entitled to intervene in an action brought against the administrator to recover a claim against the estate. It is not necessary, however, to determine this question upon the present appeal, since the issues presented by the complaint in intervention were the same as those presented by the answer of the administrator, and the findings of the court against the allegations of the complaint, as well as the judgment thereon, must have been the same had the plaintiff’s demurrer to this intervention been sustained. The order overruling his demurrer is not, therefore, a sufficient ground for reversing the judgment.

2. It is next urged as a ground for reversal that the findings of fact are insufficient to support the judgment, in that there is no finding that plaintiff did not perform the services alleged in the coinplaint to have been rendered, and that it is not found that such services as alleged were not of the value of $30,000. The court found “that the plaintiff, within two years prior to the death of A. P. More, deceased, performed work, labor, and services for and at the request of said A. P. More, which said work, labor, and services did not exceed in value five hundred dollars; that said A. P. More, deceased, at no time promised and agreed to pay the plaintiff for any services mentioned in the complaint any sum whatever, but that all services which plaintiff performed for decedent during said two years were mutually understood and agreed between plaintiff and defendant to be gratuitous, and to be rendered without [319]charge, and were such services as a broker usually renders gratuitously to- a customer who is doing other business with him; that, for such services found to be performed as aforesaid, plaintiff was paid and did receive the sum of five hundred dollars in full for such services, and gave his receipt in full therefor.” These findings might have been greatly condensed, but they are clearly sufficient to support the judgment. It is said, however, that the finding that More did not promise to pay plaintiff for said services is outside of the issues. The answer denied that More ever promised or agreed to pay plaintiff for said services, thus raising an issue upon the allegation of the complaint that he did so promise and agree. But, if it were otherwise, it would not affect the judgment, since it • was found that his services were worth no more than $500, and he was paid that sum, and received it in full.

Watson v. Miller

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief