Bruce v. Mathews
This text of 101 Mass. 64 (Bruce v. Mathews) 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.
Opinion
The action is on a promissory note. The answer denies that the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount claimed. But this is no denial of any fact alleged in the declaration. Hawes v. Ryder, 100 Mass. 216. The answer also alleges a payment of the note. The wife of the defendant was offered as a witness to prove payment. But she was properly held to be incompetent; for the St. of 1865, c. 207, § 2, makes her testimony admissible only “ whenever the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial was made or transacted ” with her. This does not extend to a case where she is called to prove a payment made by her.
The evidence as to the want of a proper stamp was not admissible, no such defence being open upon the answer.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 Mass. 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-mathews-mass-1869.