# Mitchell v. Southern Pacific Railroad

> California Supreme Court · December 12, 1890 · 87 Cal. 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5444974

## Case

- **Full name:** MOSES MITCHELL v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 12, 1890
- **Citations:** 87 Cal. 62; 25 P. 245; 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1095
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thornton
- **Judges:** Paterson, Thornton
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5444974

## Opinion text

Thornton, J., dissenting.
I dissent. The exclusion of the testimony of Smith on which the reversal is ordered could not possibly have caused any injury to the defendant. Evidence of the return of the conductor before the catastrophe occurred in which the plaintiff was injured was already in and uncontradicted. The conductor had already testified to the fact of such return. The time of the return of the conductor from the platform could not possibly show how long the plaintiff stood on the platform, as the conductor, when he returned, left the plaintiff standing on the platform. The evidence shows that the conductor and plaintiff went on the platform at the same time. The conductor returned, leaving plaintiff on the platform. How could the time of the *78 return of the conductor show how long plaintiff remained on the platform after such return ? If the return of the conductor from the platform could show anything as to the time that the plaintiff remained on the platform after such return, the fact of his return was already in evidence and uncontradicted. A case carefully and laboriously tried should not be sent back for a new trial for an error, if any, so trifling.
Rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5444974. Public record. Not legal advice.