Cohn v. Mulford

Citations

• 15 Cal. 50

Syllabus

<p>Trespass against the Sheriff for levying on certain goods as the property of G. & Co., under an execution on a judgment in favor of Crafts v. O. §• Co. Plaintiff claims to have been the owner of the goods, by purchase from G. & Co. before the levy. Defense was, fraud in such purchase. On the trial, defendants, to prove the fraud, offered to show, that before this sale, “ about a year past, plaintiff had bought G. & Co. out before, for the purpose of proving fraud,” and the Court rejected the testimony. Held, that this was not error; that there was nothing on the face of the exception to show the materiality or relevancy of the testimony—there being no offer to show even that the first sale was fraudulent.</p> <p>The rale allowing distinct frauds to be proven in such cases is limited to frauds which are contemporaneous, or nearly so, and does not embrace dealings at a remote time.</p> <p>When error is alleged in the exclusion of testimony, it must clearly appear on the face of the exception, that the testimony was, not that, possibly, it might have been relevant.</p> <p>Statements made by a vendor of personal property subsequent to his sale, are not admissible to defeat the title of his vendee, either when used as proof of fraud, or any other fact in avoidance of the deed.</p> <p>Am exception, showing that the Court ruled out the proffered statements of the vendor in such case, without showing what the statements were, is insufficient. The exception must show the statements to have some pertinency to the matters in issue.</p>