Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)

Citation: Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)
Parent Document: Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1946-05-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2616982/berry-v-chaplin/ ↗

Full Text

2,039 chars

A stipulation that only such evidence as shall be agreed upon by the parties shall be admissible will not be allowed to control the action of the court in the reception of other evidence or to determine the effect to be given to it. Courts will not permit the course of justice to be controlled or the conduct of an action to be circumscribed in such manner as to defeat the ends of justice. Parties cannot arrogate judicial functions to themselves nor can they agree to oust the court of the juris*659diction given to it by law to admit all evidence applicable to a canse and to render judgment accordingly. (McCormick v. Woodmen of the World, 57 Cal.App. 568, 571 [207 P. 943].) Neither can a court be deprived of its jurisdiction to admit competent circumstantial evidence by an agreement of the parties requiring direct and positive proof of a fact. (Utter v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 65 Mich. 545 [32 N.W. 812, 816, 8 A.L.R. 913].) In Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Davis, 129 Kan. 790 [284 P. 430, 434, 68 A.L.R. 321], the court said that the experience of seven centuries has proved that the rules of evidence promote the general welfare and are for the best interests of the people, and that an agreement as to what shall constitute conclusive evidence is an attempt to make the court a ministerial officer of the parties to do that which the parties agree shall be done. In Conwell v. Varain, 20 Cal.App. 521 [130 P. 23], a stipulation was made in open court that the cause be submitted upon the single question of fact whether one line written in ink in a document was above or beneath another line, and that judgment should be rendered for plaintiff or for defendant accordingly as a handwriting expert appointed by the court should report concerning which line was superimposed upon the other. The court held (p. 528) that while an attorney had authority to stipulate upon certain matters, a stipulation that the, cause be submitted upon the unsworn report of an expert and that such report should be conclusive was not to be tolerated.

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text