Shain v. Maxwell

Citations

• 115 Cal. 208
• 46 P. 1069
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 994

Syllabus

<p>Assumpsit — Goods Furnished — Monet Advanced—Bill of Particulars—Order Denying Further Bill—Insufficient Bill of Exceptions.—After a bill of particulars has been served in an action to recover a balance of account for goods furnished and money advanced, and an order has been made denying a motion for a further bill of particulars, there is no foundation for argument that the order should have been different, where the bill of exceptions does not show what evidence was used in support of the motion, or whether the former hill of particulars was placed in evidence, or exhibited to the court.</p> <p>Id,—Charges for Wines and Liquors—Application of Payments—Appeal—Support of Verdict—Absence of Evidence.—Where there is nothing in the record upon appeal to show what evidence was adduced at the trial, the propriety of a verdict for the plaintiff cannot be indirectly impeached by a bill of particulars showing that certain items of the account were for wines and liquors, and that payments were acknowledged upon the account, which in amount were sufficient to extinguish the whole of the account, exclusive of such items; but it is sufficient to support the verdict, that it may have been proved that the parties to the account agreed to such application of payments as would support the verdict.</p>