Boardman v. Roe
13 Mass. 104
Opinion
The supposed trustee has discharged himself by his answers to the interrogatories put to him, unless he is obliged by law to answer the last interrogatory ; which is intended to draw from him an acknowledgment, that, in the purchase of some real estate of the principal debtor, part of the consideration was a debt arising upon an usurious loan, which the trustee had made to the debtor.
If the object of the interrogatory be, to avoid the conveyance of real estate, it is improper ; because no man shall be held, by his answers, to disparage his title.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Boardman v. Roe, 13 Mass. 104 (Mass. 1816).
13 Mass. 104 (Boardman v. Roe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Davisson v. Smith
55 S.E. 466 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)
O'Neil v. Cleveland
30 N.J. Eq. 273 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1878)
Barker v. Esty
19 Vt. 131 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1847)
Bell v. Kendrick
8 N.H. 520 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1837)
Hale v. Jewell
7 Me. 435 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1831)
Richardson v. Field
6 Me. 35 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1829)
Russell v. Lewis
15 Mass. 127 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1818)
Greene v. Hatch
12 Mass. 195 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1815)