Development Co. v. Brannan

2 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. Walters

    100 P.2d 98 (Wyo. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    45 C.J. 665 and cases cited in notes 77 and 78; 20 R.C.L. Section 119, Page 147, and cases cited in notes 10 and 11. Other questions regarding the admissibility of evidence are argued, but as the trial was to the court, the principles announced in Williams v. Yocum, 37 Wyo. 432, 445, 263 P. 607, and Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 119, 275 P. 115, are applicable. We accordingly affirm the judgment under review.

  2. State Bank v. Bagley Bros

    44 Wyo. 244 (Wyo. 1932)   Cited 22 times
    In State Bank of Wheatland v. Bagley Brothers, 44 Wyo. 244, 11 P.2d 572, this court held that one who had been made a defendant in an action to foreclose a mortgage and who by his answer had admitted all of plaintiff's claims in the suit, was, although formally so, not an adverse party within the proper construction of Section 89-1705, supra, so as to authorize his cross-examination by the plaintiff.

    Where a case is tried to the court without a jury, and there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court's findings and judgment, the judgment will not be reversed because of the admission of incompetent evidence. Alaska Devel. Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106; Williams, et al. v. Yocum, et al., 37 Wyo. 432; Yount v. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 526; Freeman v. Peterson, (Colo.) 100 P. 600; Arizona etc. Co. v. D. R.G.R.R. Co., 117 P. 730; Chlopeck v. Chlopeck, (Wash.