Butler v. Price

115 Mass. 578, 1864 Mass. LEXIS 306
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 26, 1864·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Devens, J.

This case does not differ in any respect from that which was presented when it was last before the court, except that it now appears that the letter introduced was in reply to that addressed to the defendant by Mrs. Blinn. But in order that the reply of Mrs. Price or anything contained in it should affect the defendant, it is necessary first to show that she acted in writing it by his authority or as his agent. As no such authority or agency can be inferred from the relation of husband and wife, there is no evidence of any unless the letter itself is permitted to furnish it. Until some evidence of authority from the defendant to Mrs. Price to write the letter is offered, it cannot be examined' or considered, and we cannot therefore reason from anything contained in it, and until then the fact that she replied to a letter addressed to the defendant is immaterial.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Butler v. Price, 115 Mass. 578, 1864 Mass. LEXIS 306 (Mass. 1864).

115 Mass. 578 (Butler v. Price) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilfert v. Medoff
5 Mass. App. Dec. 63 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1953)
Gordon v. O'Brien
71 N.E.2d 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Chester Savings Bank v. Falsey
11 Conn. Super. Ct. 461 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1943)
Chester Savings Bank v. Falsey
11 Conn. Supp. 461 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Provident Institution for Savings v. Merrill
40 N.E.2d 280 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Lajoie v. Milliken
242 Mass. 508 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Vaughan v. Mansfield
118 N.E. 652 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Radican v. Radican
48 A. 143 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
Buffinton v. Chase
10 L.R.A. 123 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Trustees of the Old Alms-House Farm v. Smith
52 Conn. 434 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1885)