Lamb

Lamb v. Otto

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 737·51 Cal. App. 433·197 P. 147
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1921Civ. No. 3592.California1,387 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty. A trial was had in the lower court and at the end of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved ■for a nonsuit. The motion was granted, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time the motion was granted the trial court had received considerable parol evidence on the issue as to what warranties, if any, were made. Such evidence was introduced over the objection and exception of the respondent. If the oral evidence was admissible the lower court erred in granting the nonsuit. If the evidence was inadmissible the lower court erred in receiving the evidence, but cured the error by granting the nonsuit.

[1] In the first place, we will, therefore, examine into the question as to the admissibility of the evidence which was tendered and received. The appellant had bought a second-hand automobile from the respondent. The purchase was evidenced by_a formal written transfer which was signed by the buyer and by the seller. The subject of the sale is described as “One Beo Automobile Motor No. - Touring…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.