James v. James
Citations
- 124 Cal. 653
- 57 P. 578
- 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1043
Syllabus
<p>Admission of Improper Evidence—Appeal—Reversal.—The admission of improper evidence, under objection, which tends in any degree to affect the final conclusion of the court, is ground for reversal of the judgment upon appeal, and for ordering a new trial, notwithstanding there may be sufficient other evidence in the record to support the findings of fact.</p> <p>Id.—Improper Impeachment—Specific Acts of Immorality.— Specific acts of immorality cannot be shown to impeach a witness; and where evidence thereof does not tend -to shed light upon the issues tried, and is calculated to besmirch the character of material witnesses, and to weaken their credibility, its admission is prejudicial error.</p> <p>Id.—Impeachment of Testimony as to Marriage—Immoral Book—Immoral Conduct of Alleged Wife.—Where a mother and daughter were sole witnesses to the marriage of the daughter with a deceased person, they cannot he impeached hy evidence of a highly immoral hook shown to have been written by the mother and read by the daughter, and to have been suppressed by the Society for the Suppression of Vice; nor is evidence admissible to show immoral conduct, on The part of the alleged wife with other men prior to the alleged marriage.</p> <p>Id.—Hearsay Evidence—Declarations of Relatives—Engagement op Marriage—Res Gestae.—Declarations of relatives oi the alleged wife, made after the death of the alleged husband, and not within her hearing, to the effect that she was engaged to he married to him at the time of his death, and offered to show the nonexistence of a marriage between them, relate to past matters, and are no part of the res gestae, hut are inadmissible hearsay, as against the alleged widow and child of the deceased. Declarations of members of a family, who are not parties to the litigation, as to such matters, are no more admissible than the declarations of strangers.</p> <p>Id.—Declarations as to Pedigree—Inapplicable Rule.—The rule as to the admissibility of declarations upo
Judges: Garoutte
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court· 1958-01-07· cited 151×
- People Ex Rel. Reisig v. AcunaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2017-02-28· cited 57×
- People v. CrandallCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-06-17· cited 33×
- Marshall v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-07-01· cited 22×
- State v. ApleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-04-14· cited 20×
- State v. RogersMontana Supreme Court· 1904-06-22· cited 19×
- Rea v. PursleySupreme Court of Georgia· 1930-07-18· cited 18×
- Wicktor v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-05-16· cited 9×
- Hubatka v. MaierhofferSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1911-06-28· cited 9×
- Davis v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-03-25· cited 7×
- Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Elgin Clock Co.D. Delaware· 1928-05-24· cited 6×
- Wilson v. ManducaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1965-03-23· cited 5×
- Estate of BartonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1936-08-24· cited 3×
- Hebrew Home for Aged Disabled v. FriedmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1918-03-25· cited 1×
- P. ex rel. Reisig v. AcunaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2017-03-10
- In re Estate of GodsilCalifornia Superior Court, San Francisco County· 1895-07-01
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. WellsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-12-22· cited 88×
- De La Cuesta v. CalkinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-04-07· cited 71×
- Roosa v. Boston Loan Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1882-03-03· cited 53×
- Griffith v. DiffenderfferCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1879-02-07· cited 53×
- People v. MayneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-10-09· cited 31×
- People v. Un DongCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-02-07· cited 21×
- Pyle v. PiercyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-11-21· cited 21×
- People v. HamblinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-11-26· cited 19×
- People v. SilvaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-08-17· cited 10×
- Jones v. DuchowCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-12-13· cited 9×
- Evans v. De LayCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-10-11· cited 7×
- Hinkle v. San Francisco & North Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 5×
Sourced 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.