Atherton v. Atkins

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Atherton v. Atkins

29 N.E. 223, 139 Mass. 61, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 22

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.E. 223 (Atherton v. Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atherton v. Atkins, 29 N.E. 223, 139 Mass. 61, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 22 (Mass. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The testimony as to what Flynn said was of itself immaterial and incompetent. But the argument for its, admission is now put on the ground that it would account for the defendants’ subsequent conduct in showing horses to the [63]*63plaintiff. The difficulty in our entertaining this view is, that it does not appear by the bill of exceptions that the evidence was offered for that purpose at the trial, or that the defendants’ subsequent conduct had already been shown as a fact in the case, at the time when the evidence of what Flynn said was excluded. Where evidence has been excluded which was incompetent of itself, but the party who offered it relies, at the argument in this court on the bill of exceptions, on some special ground or circumstances to make it competent, — as, for example, to explain some equivocal act of the party which has been shown by his adversary and is relied on in the case, — the bill of exceptions should show clearly that such special ground or circumstances existed, and that the evidence was offered for the special purpose. Collins v. Stephenson, 8 Gray, 438, 441. Jones v. Smith, 121 Mass. 15. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. Allen, J.

The testimony as to what Flynn said was of itself immaterial and incompetent. But the argument for its, admission is now put on the ground that it would account for the defendants’ subsequent conduct in showing horses to the [63]*63plaintiff. The difficulty in our entertaining this view is, that it does not appear by the bill of exceptions that the evidence was offered for that purpose at the trial, or that the defendants’ subsequent conduct had already been shown as a fact in the case, at the time when the evidence of what Flynn said was excluded. Where evidence has been excluded which was incompetent of itself, but the party who offered it relies, at the argument in this court on the bill of exceptions, on some special ground or circumstances to make it competent, — as, for example, to explain some equivocal act of the party which has been shown by his adversary and is relied on in the case, — the bill of exceptions should show clearly that such special ground or circumstances existed, and that the evidence was offered for the special purpose. Collins v. Stephenson, 8 Gray, 438, 441. Jones v. Smith, 121 Mass. 15. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.E. 223, 139 Mass. 61, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atherton-v-atkins-mass-1885.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack