Ely v. Beal
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McCOMB; MOORE, P. J., and WILSON |
| Citation | 100 Cal.App.2d 743,224 P.2d 479 |
| Parties | ELY v. BEAL. Civ. 17760. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1950 |
Page 479
v.
BEAL.
Rudolf Winkler, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Charles H. Matthews, Los Angeles, for respondent.
McCOMB, Justice.
From a judgment in favor of defendant predicated upon the granting of his motion for a nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Facts: Plaintiff filed an action against defendant to recover damages for injuries received as a result of being hit by an [100 Cal.App.2d 744] automobile. A jury having been waived plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that while in a marked pedestrian crosswalk he was struck by an automobile. Plaintiff took the witness stand but could not testify without the aid of an interpreter. The latter would not be available until the next day, whereupon the trial judge asked plaintiff's counsel whether he had any other witnesses to which plaintiff's counsel replied that he had none; that the only witnesses he intended to produce were plaintiff and a hospital witness.
The court then asked defendant's counsel if he had any suggestions, to which he replied that his client had come from New York to be present at the trial, and that he was willing to expedite matters by putting on the defense out of order but did not desire to prejudice defendant's right to make any and all motions available to defendant at the close of plaintiff's case. Counsel for plaintiff was then asked how many other witnesses he intended to call to give testimony relative to what occurred at the accident, to which he replied that he intended to call only plaintiff. Defendant's counsel then stated that if counsel for plaintiff would stipulate that no witnesses to the accident were to be called other than plaintiff; would further stipulate that defense testimony would be considered subject to any and all motions defendant had available to him under the law at the close of plaintiff's case; and that defendant might reserve the right to make any motion at the close of plaintiff's case that defendant would otherwise have the right to make under the law--then and only under such stipulation defendant was willing to proceed with his case out of order. Counsel for plaintiff stated that he was willing to so stipulate. The court then recited the stipulation whereupon counsel for both sides assented and the stipulation was approved by the court.
Defendant introduced testimony among other things to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carmichael v. Reitz
...jury only the evidence which was before the court at the time when the nonsuit was granted may be considered. (Cf. Ely v. Beal (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 743, 745, 224 P.2d 479; People v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 476, 482, 83 Cal.Rptr. 771, fn. 3; Thompson v. Superior Court (1968) 262 ......
-
Morris v. Aerojet-General Corp., AEROJET-GENERAL
...motion which was made at the close of plaintiff's case. This was legally permissible (Ely v. Beal, 100 Cal.App.2d[183 Cal.App.2d 614] 743, 224 P.2d 479). Plaintiff construes language of the trial judge in ruling on defendant's motion to mean that testimony of Kimball must have been in the m......
-
Calderon v. Dispatch Trucking Co.
...driver or owner of the vehicle alleged to have negligently caused the injury claimed [268 Cal.App.2d 223] by plaintiff. (Ely v. Beal, 100 Cal.App.2d 743, 224 P.2d Under the circumstances of this case the order denying a motion for a new trial is a nonappealable order. The attempted appeal f......
-
Boone v. Hall, 17614
...or done, andwas received not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matters asserted but to prove that certain statements had [100 Cal.App.2d 743] been made. Therefore such evidence was admissible. (See Smith v. Whittier, 95 Cal. 279, 293 et seq., 30 P. Affirmed. MOORE, P. J., and WILS......
-
Carmichael v. Reitz
...jury only the evidence which was before the court at the time when the nonsuit was granted may be considered. (Cf. Ely v. Beal (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 743, 745, 224 P.2d 479; People v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 476, 482, 83 Cal.Rptr. 771, fn. 3; Thompson v. Superior Court (1968) 262 ......
-
Morris v. Aerojet-General Corp., AEROJET-GENERAL
...motion which was made at the close of plaintiff's case. This was legally permissible (Ely v. Beal, 100 Cal.App.2d[183 Cal.App.2d 614] 743, 224 P.2d 479). Plaintiff construes language of the trial judge in ruling on defendant's motion to mean that testimony of Kimball must have been in the m......
-
Calderon v. Dispatch Trucking Co.
...driver or owner of the vehicle alleged to have negligently caused the injury claimed [268 Cal.App.2d 223] by plaintiff. (Ely v. Beal, 100 Cal.App.2d 743, 224 P.2d Under the circumstances of this case the order denying a motion for a new trial is a nonappealable order. The attempted appeal f......
-
Boone v. Hall, 17614
...or done, andwas received not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matters asserted but to prove that certain statements had [100 Cal.App.2d 743] been made. Therefore such evidence was admissible. (See Smith v. Whittier, 95 Cal. 279, 293 et seq., 30 P. Affirmed. MOORE, P. J., and WILS......