Beston v. Amadon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Beston v. Amadon

61 N.E. 1139, 180 Mass. 23, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 712

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.E. 1139 (Beston v. Amadon) 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

Beston v. Amadon, 61 N.E. 1139, 180 Mass. 23, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 712 (Mass. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, G. J.

This case has been before the court already on substantially the same evidence, and it has been decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to go to the jury. 172 Mass. 84. There was a little more evidence for the defence, but that, of course, the jury might disbelieve. We do not perceive upon what ground that question is raised here again. As to the second and third rulings asked, they were not literally correct, and were covered, so far as proper, by the instructions given. If the fourth request meant only that there was no evidence that the defendant’s intestate knew before her return that the work had been begun, the proposition is questionable, and, in case she authorized it, immaterial. If it meant that there was no evidence that she knew that the work was to be done, that already has been decided against the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Holmes, G. J.

This case has been before the court already on substantially the same evidence, and it has been decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to go to the jury. 172 Mass. 84. There was a little more evidence for the defence, but that, of course, the jury might disbelieve. We do not perceive upon what ground that question is raised here again. As to the second and third rulings asked, they were not literally correct, and were covered, so far as proper, by the instructions given. If the fourth request meant only that there was no evidence that the defendant’s intestate knew before her return that the work had been begun, the proposition is questionable, and, in case she authorized it, immaterial. If it meant that there was no evidence that she knew that the work was to be done, that already has been decided against the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E. 1139, 180 Mass. 23, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beston-v-amadon-mass-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack