Burke v. Kaley
138 Mass. 464, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 225
Opinion
The facts that the defendant’s intestate had money in two savings banks, and that he drew out enough to pay his expenses, do not necessarily tend to prove any of the issues in the case. To admit them might open the door to a wide range of inquiry upon collateral issues; and we are of opinion that the court had the right to exclude them.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Burke v. Kaley, 138 Mass. 464, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 225 (Mass. 1885).
138 Mass. 464 (Burke v. Kaley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Prifti v. Hendrick
51 N.E.2d 322 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Sellick v. Forsters
1 A.2d 65 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1938)
Pack v. Dunn
37 P.2d 790 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)
State v. Cates
33 P.2d 578 (Montana Supreme Court, 1934)
Soja v. Fligier
158 N.E. 273 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Lee v. Tarplin
66 N.E. 431 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Worthington v. Plymouth County Railroad
47 N.E. 403 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)