CRESCENT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PETERS MACHINERY CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court reversibly erred by excluding depositions taken before a commissioner pursuant to an ex parte court order where the defendant received notice four days before the depositions were taken, failed to object beforehand, and thus waived any objections to the order.
A party waives objections to a court order authorizing depositions before a commissioner when it receives notice of the order and the deposition date but fails to object prior to the depositions being taken.
[1] A party waives objections to a court order authorizing depositions when it receives timely notice of the order and scheduled deposition date but fails to object prior to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrescent Equipment Company sued Peters Machinery Corporation for breach of contract. Crescent offered depositions taken out of state before a commissi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusion Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when at trial it excluded froni evidence certain depositions offered by the plaintiff [Crescent Equipment Company], These depositions were conced-edly relevant and vital to certain of the plaintiff’s claimed damages in this breach of contract action.
The sole ground for excluding the above depositions was that they were taken out of state before a commissioner pursuant to a court order authorizing same, which order was entered ex parte without prior notice to the defendant. Without dispute, however, the defendant received a copy of the order four days before the depositions were taken, the order did give the defendant notice of when the depositions would be taken, and the defendant, although it had sufficient time to do so, made no objection prior to the taking of these depositions concerning the propriety of the subject order and waited until trial to voice its complaints. We think the defendant by its inaction waived any objections to the order appointing a commissioner herein and that the trial court should have admitted the above depositions in evidence. See Wong Ho v. Dulles, 261 F. 2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1958).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.