Brown v. Gillett

Citations

• 33 Wash. 264
• 74 P. 386

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Review—Objections to Testimony. Error cannot be predicated upon the admission of testimony when no sufficient objection was made thereto below.</p> <p>Same—Requested Instructions. Error cannot be predicated upon the refusal to give requested instructions, where they are not contained in the record.</p> <p>Evidence—Impeaching—Laying Foundation. Where upon an issue as to fraudulent representations as to the value of a mining claim, a witness testified that it was not such as was represented, evidence of his previous statement that it was a good claim is impeaching testimony, and error requiring a reversal, where ho foundation therefor had been laid by calling his attention thereto.</p> <p>Same—Rule Applies to Depositions. The rule that a witness may not be impeached by previous contradictory statements, un: less the foundation therefore has been laid, applies to a witness whose testimony is taken by deposition.</p> <p>Appeal—Admission of Impeaching Testimony—Prejudicial Error. Error in the introduction of impeaching testimony without proper foundation, upon the point directly in issue, is presumed prejudicial since it cannot affirmatively appear what would otherwise have been the verdict.</p> <p>Rescission—Necessity of Tender—Waiver by Failing to Demur. In an action in the nature of rescission of a contract to recover money paid on fraudulent representations, the objection that the plaintiff had not offered to surrender a mortgage given under the contract should be taken by demurrer to the complaint, and is too late after trial and verdict on the merits.</p>