Board of Education v. Keenan
Citations
- 55 Cal. 642
- 1880 Cal. LEXIS 337
Syllabus
<p>Evidence—Parole Testimony to Explain Res Gestas—Latent Ambiguity—Map.—In an action of ejectment to recover land, alleged to have been selected as a school lot by the commissioners appointed under certain ordinances of the Common Council of San Francisco, and the Act of March 11th, 1858, ratifying the same, the plaintiff put in evidence the report of the commissioners to the Common Council, and the map accompanying the same, and offered to prove that, before the map and report were filed, the lots selected by the commissioners, and referred to in their report, were colored, by them on tlie map; that such coloring was intended to designate them as school lots; and that the lot in question was one of the lots so colored, and intended to be designated as school lots. To this offer the Court sustained an objection, and refused to permit the witnesses to testify. Held, first, that the plaintiff was entitled to prove by witnesses the condition of the map when it was filed, and that this was substantially included in the offer to prove that the lots, referred to in the report of the commissioners, were colored by them before the map and report were furnished to the Comrmm Council; secondly, that parole testimony was also admissible to show that the coloring of the map was done by the commissioners, and the purpose for which it Was done: the grounds of the decision being, that the purpose of the act was part of the res gestos, and could therefore be proven by parole testimony; and also, that, it appearing that tlio purpose of the coloring was to designate the lots as selected for public purposes, there arose a latent ambiguity, as to w hich color was intended to designate the lots selected for school purposes, to remove which, evidence was admissible.</p> <p>Id.—Objections—Offer of Evidence.—When an offer is made of a mass of evidence, complex in its character, and the whole of it is objected to, in such case, if any part of it is admissible, it is error to exclude the wh
Judges: McKee, McKinstry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.