Bryant v. Commonwealth Insurance
This text of 26 Mass. 485 (Bryant v. Commonwealth Insurance) 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
granted a new trial, because tne evidence did not support the verdict; and they said that these depositions ought to have been rejected. They were taken within the letter of the rule, but certainly against the spirit of it. One of [496]*496the plaintiffs was going to Norfolk to superintend the execution the commission, and this was known to the defendants The names of the deponents were not given. The defendants had an agent at Norfolk, and they requested that the taking of the depositions might be notified to him. He was pointed out to the plaintiffs, and, we think, justice required that such notice should be given. If the application had been made to a judge at chambers, instead of the clerk, it would have been ordered. The names of the witnesses should be given to the adverse party, where they are known ; and where they are not named, and the commission goes to any magistrate, and the adverse party desires to have notice given to his agent, it is reasonable that his request should be complied with. These depositions are not to be used at the next trial, unless by the agreement of the parties.1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 Mass. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-commonwealth-insurance-mass-1830.