Coleman v. Montgomery
| Citation | 19 Wash. 610,53 P. 1102 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. MONTGOMERY ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1898 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Jefferson county; James G. McClinton, Judge.
Action by A. R. Coleman against J. B. Montgomery and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Montgomery appeals. Affirmed.
Robert W. Jennings, for appellant.
A. R. Coleman and Trumbull & Trumbull, for respondent.
Respondent brought this action to recover for legal services rendered under a contract alleged to have been entered into with the attorney in fact and agent of the appellant. The case was tried to a jury, and from a judgment in plaintiff's favor the defendant has appealed. The errors assigned relate to rulings of the court during the course of the trial. The principal ground of alleged error relied upon was the admission over respondent's objection of what purported to be a copy of a power of attorney executed by the appellant, and of record in the office of the recorder of conveyances for Multnomah county, Or., by whom it purports to have been certified. This was received in evidence without any proof concerning the laws of that state on the subject; but the objection to this evidence was not sufficiently definite to raise the grounds urged here. The objection was evidently considered by the court as going only to the form of the certification. This is emphasized by the question which the court addressed to counsel. There was competent evidence tending to support the verdict, and the judgment entered upon it must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boast
...to the real reason for the testimony's inadmissibility, error may not be based upon the overruling of the objection. Coleman v. Montgomery, 19 Wash. 610, 53 P. 1102 (1898). An assignment of error as to the admission of evidence upon a certain ground cannot be made where no objection to the ......
-
State v. Biby
...be based upon the overruling of the objection.'" State v. Boast, 87 Wn.2d 447, 451, 553 P.2d 1322 (1976) (quoting Coleman v. Montgomery, 19 Wash. 610, 53 P. 1102 (1898)). When the trial court sought clarification, asking defense counsel if she had a specific motion to bring, counsel said th......
-
State v. Biby, No. 25514-0-III (Wash. App. 12/20/2007)
...not be based upon the overruling of the objection.'" State v. Boast, 87 Wn.2d 447, 451, 553 P.2d 1322 (1976) (quoting Coleman v. Montgomery, 19 Wash. 610, 53 P. 1102 (1898)). When the trial court sought clarification, asking defense counsel if she had specific motion to bring, counsel said ......
-
State v. Evans
...553 P.2d 1322, quoting Kull v. Department of Labor & Indus., 21 Wash.2d 672, 682-83, 152 P.2d 961 (1944). Accord, Coleman v. Montgomery, 19 Wash. 610, 53 P. 1102 (1898). As for a motion in limine, the same requirements apply. In Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Constr. Co., 87 Wash.2d 85, 91, 54......