Graham v. Harmon
Citations
- 84 Cal. 181
- 23 P. 1097
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 784
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Review of Conflicting Evidence. — When a finding of the court below is based upon conflicting evidence, which is not wholly documentary, and any part of the evidence is sufficient to support the finding, it must be taken as conclusive upon appeal, and cannot be disturbed. Assumpsit — Account — Bill of Particulars—Erroneous Charges and Credits — Explanatory Evidence. — When the bill of particulars furnished in an action upon an account contains certain, erroneous charges and credits which constitute an offset to each other, it is proper to allow the plaintiff to explain the items in the hill of particulars, and to show that such eh irges and credits grew out of the blending of several distinct accounts in one by mistake.</p> <p>Id. — Correctness of Bill of Particulars — Truth of Items — Exclusion of Evidence. —The plaintiff is only required to furnish a correct copy of his hooks of account in a bill of particulars, when demanded pursuant to section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The truth of the items of the account is the very point in issue, and the penalty of being precluded from giving evidence of the account only applies where the party of whom the copy of the account is demanded in writing refuses to furnish the same.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the appellant failed to show that he was harmed or prevented from raising any viable issue on appeal when four exhibits were missing from the record but were adequately discussed in the transcript
- concluding that the appellant failed to show that he was harmed or prevented from raising any viable issue on appeal when four exhibits were missing from the record but were adequately discussed in the transcript
- concluding that there was no need for a remand where, although the trial court did not specifically cite OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, its order showed that it made a legal sufficiency and a discretionary determination
- concluding that there was no need for a remand where, although the trial court did not specifically cite OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, its order showed that it made a legal sufficiency and a discretionary determination
- holding charge on accident not warranted when based on defendant’s own testimony, a “criminal scheme” was ongoing when defendant shot the victim
- rejecting the argument that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion when it adopted a party's proposed order verbatim
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gibson
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.