White

White v. San Rafael & San Quentin Railroad

Good Law
50 Cal. 417
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1875No. 4234California380 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

1. The respondent cannot be permitted to point to the defects in the answer of the defendant, real or supposed, as precluding the defendant from objections, otherwise well made, to the admissibility of evidence offered at the trial. The case seems to have been tried upon the supposition that the answer presented a sufficient denial to the allegations of the complaint; and to raise the objection for the first time in this Court is too late. Substantial justice requires that such objections, if intended to be relied on, should be taken below, where an amendment may be made.

2. And we are of opinion that it was well objected by the defendant at the trial, that the plaintiff had failed to produce *420 a written order by the engineer for the extra work in controversy. One of the stipulations of the contract is as follows: “No deviation from any of the provisions of this contract, specifications or drawings will be permitted, unless with the sanction in writing of the engineer, nor will any claim of extra work be allowed, under any pretense, unless a written order for the same by the engineer can be produced.”

We see nothing inequitable or unreasonable in such a stipulation. It was…

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.