Hogan

Hogan v. Tyler

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 835·2 Cal. Unrep. 489·7 P. 454
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 24, 1885No. 8744California498 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thornton, J.

As to the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, it only needs to be said that the evidence is conflicting, and, under such circumstances, this court will not interfere with such verdict on appeal. The parol evidence of the plaintiff did not tend to contradict, add to, or vary the written contract entered into between the parties to this action. The oral evidence referred to a different agreement, which was never reduced to writing. Under such circumstances, the rule which excludes parol evidence on the ground that it will contradict, add to, or vary an agreement in writing does not apply: 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 284a, 303.

The defendant, on the cross-examination of plaintiff, put to him the following question: “Now, before you delivered these papers—this note and the policies of insurance—to Judge Tyler, did you have any conversation with Mrs. Hedge on the subject?” The question was objected to by the plaintiff as immaterial; that any conversation with Mrs. Hedge was immaterial, as she was not a party'to the action. The objection was sustained and defendant excepted. Why this question was asked was not explained. No statement was made to show how the answer…

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.