Hinkle v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad

Citations

• 55 Cal. 627
• 1880 Cal. LEXIS 335

Syllabus

<p>Contract—Variance.—The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the S. & II. It. It. Co. (afterward merged into and consolidated with the defendant) for the construction of a tunnel—the contract price to he paid upon estimates of the chief engineer; and that the engineer, by collusion with the company, and for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiffs, omitted certain work from his estimates. Upon the trial the plaintiffs offered to prove that ho did extra work, on the promise of the engineer, (subsequently ratified by the president of the company) that they should he paid for it, as for similar work under the contract. Hold, that as the plaintiffs liad not sued for extra work, hut for work done under the original contract, the evidence was not admissible.</p> <p>Id.—Instructions.—The Court in effect instructed the jury that, if the estimates of the chief engineer were honestly made, they were conclusive, but the bill of exceptions did not contain the contract, or any of the evidence to which the instruction related. Hold, that it could not he said that there was any error in the ruling.</p> <p>Impeachment of Witness—Character—Evidence.—A witness, with a view to impeach him, was asked certain questions, (stated below) affecting bis moral character. Hold, that they were rightly ruled out.</p>