Christensen v. Reid

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Boloff

    138 Or. 568 (Or. 1932)   Cited 17 times

    her the court erred in the reception of the challenged testimony, the familiar rule governing the effect of alleged error comes to mind, that is, the admission of objectionable evidence is not cause for reversal where substantially the same evidence has been previously received without objection ( Tyler v. Moore, 111 Or. 499 ( 226 P. 443); Meier Frank Co. v. Mitlehner, 75 Or. 331 ( 146 P. 796); Blue v. Portland Railway Light Power Co., 60 Or. 122 ( 117 P. 1094); or where the fact involved has been previously fully established by other evidence which is competent ( Reid v. Yellow Cab Co., 131 Or. 27 ( 279 P. 635, 67 A.L.R. 1); L.B. Menefee Lumber Co. v. MacDonald, 122 Or. 579 ( 260 P. 444); Meridinial Co. v. Moeck, 121 Or. 133 ( 253 P. 525); State v. White, 48 Or. 416 ( 87 P. 137); Siglin v. Coos Bay Co., 35 Or. 79 ( 56 P. 1011, 76 Am. St. Rep. 463); or if the fact involved has already been established by competent evidence and the challenged evidence is only cumulative in character; Christensen v. Reid, 116 Or. 554 ( 240 P. 1113, 241 P. 1009); Smith v. National Surety Co., 77 Or. 17 ( 149 P. 1040). See generally 4 C.J., Appeal and Error, ยงยง 2954, 2955 and 2956. If we should concede that the challenged testimony was inadmissible it would necessarily follow from the application of the above rule that no prejudicial error was committed when defendant's objection was overruled, but we do not believe that the evidence was inadmissible.