Walter v. Rowlands
| Decision Date | 22 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 5462.,5462. |
| Citation | 28 F.2d 687 |
| Parties | WALTER v. ROWLANDS et ux. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
G. A. Gibbs, of Pasadena, Cal., and John G. Graham, of Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff in error.
Robert Duncan, of San Francisco, Cal. (Annette Abbott Adams, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for defendants in error.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
It is assigned as error that in answer to the question, what was his understanding of the condition of the C. A. Goodyear Lumber Company at the time of entering into the contract of March 23, 1923, Lamont Rowlands was permitted to testify that his understanding was that the company was in a very serious condition, and that "the report of the president to the stockholders indicated that." It is objected that the testimony was proof, not of the fact of financial difficulties, but only of Rowland's state of mind. To this it is to be said that the state of mind of the witness had been brought in issue by the plaintiff's contention that he had not acted in good faith in dealing with Henrietta Goodyear. The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible, not as tending to show the financial condition of the corporation, but as going to the question of the good faith and the understanding of the witness when the contract was made and the source of the information on which he relied. Where the motive of a party in performing an act thus becomes a material issue or reflects light upon the same, he may testify concerning it, and his testimony is competent to be considered for the value which it may have on the question of good faith. Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.) §§ 709, 710, and cases there cited. And in any event there was no reversible error in the ruling upon the objection specified and relied upon, which was that the testimony was not the best evidence of the contents of a written report, for the report was later received in evidence without objection.
We find no error in the trial court's refusal to strike out, as tending to alter or vary the terms of the written contract, the testimony of Lamont Rowlands that in his conversation with Henrietta on the day prior to the execution of the contract nothing was said about guaranteeing the principal of the stock. That the contract was ambiguous admits of no doubt. The parties litigant claimed for its provisions totally diverse meanings, the plaintiff asserting that therein the defendants had agreed to pay Henrietta $175,200 within her lifetime and interest thereon from January 1, 1923; the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...Co. v. Reiter, 7 Cir., 1912, 199 F. 91; Ryan v. Ohmer, 2 Cir., 1917, 244 F. 31; Neal v. Akers, 4 Cir., 1923, 286 F. 903; Walter v. Rowlands, 9 Cir., 1928, 28 F.2d 687; Deutschle v. Wilson, 8 Cir., 1930, 39 F.2d 406; Interior Linseed Co. v. Becker-Moore Paint Co., 1918, 273 Mo. 433, 202 S.W.......
- Ruddock v. Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills
-
Great American Indemnity Company v. Rose, 16303.
...adverse party places the whole of the instrument in evidence. New Arcade Co. v. Owens, 1919, 49 App.D.C. 65, 258 F. 965; Walter v. Rowlands, 9 Cir., 1928, 28 F.2d 687; Garfield Aniline Works v. Zendle, 3 Cir., 1930, 43 F.2d There was no error in denying appellant's motions for an instructed......
-
Haid v. United States, 10978.
...held that the state of mind of an individual is a fact, and further that the person himself may testify directly thereto. Walter v. Rowlands, 9 Cir., 28 F.2d 687; Deal v. United States, 9 Cir., 11 F.2d 3. (The last case was reversed upon another ground by the United States Supreme Court and......