TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coleman v. Montgomery

A. R. Coleman v. J. B. Montgomery

Coleman v. Montgomery, 53 P. 1102 (Wash. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 12, 1898
Docket
No. 2788
Judges
Pee
Citations
53 P. 110219 Wash. 6101898 Wash. LEXIS 433
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
APPEAL — OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE — INDEFINITENESS. ¡When the objections to the introduction of evidence are not definite enough to call the court’s attention to the real ground of its inadmissibility, the error cannot be urged on appeal.
Summary
Appeal-from Superior Court, Jefferson County. — Hon. James G. MoClinton, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pee

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pee Curiam.

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 *611 of the recorder of conveyances of Multnomah county, Oregon, 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1902: 11903: 11904: 21909: 11916: 11917: 11944: 11953: 11976: 11982: 11991: 119022026peak 1904 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Evans634 P.2d 845 (Wash. 1982)
  2. Sanders v. Stimson Mill Co.75 P. 974 (Wash. 1904)
  3. Murray v. City of Seattle165 P. 895 (Wash. 1917)
  4. Kull v. Department of Labor & Industries152 P.2d 961 (Wash. 1944)
  5. State v. Roby263 P.2d 273 (Wash. 1953)
  6. Anderson v. New York Life Insurance76 P. 109 (Wash. 1904)

Most recent

  1. State v. Casteneda-Perez810 P.2d 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. State v. Evans634 P.2d 845 (Wash. 1982)
  3. State v. Boast553 P.2d 1322 (Wash. 1976)
  4. State v. Roby263 P.2d 273 (Wash. 1953)
  5. Kull v. Department of Labor & Industries152 P.2d 961 (Wash. 1944)
  6. Murray v. City of Seattle165 P. 895 (Wash. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list