Canfield v. Canfield

112 Mass. 233
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The bill of exceptions contains no statement of facts proved or evidence introduced at the trial. It does not therefore appear that there was error in any material point prejudicial to the defendant, either in the refusal to give the instructions requested, or in the instructions given. As the parties [234]*234agree that the exceptions were originally drawn in this form, and deliberately adopted, after suggestion had been made that the evidence should be stated and the excepting party had resisted any change in them, the motion for a postponement must be denied, and the Exceptions overruled.

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

Canfield v. Canfield, 112 Mass. 233 (Mass. 1873).

112 Mass. 233 (Canfield v. Canfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gramatan National Bank & Trust Co. of Bronxville v. Lancaster
158 N.E.2d 497 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Levine v. Cohen
126 N.E. 660 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Horton v. Cooley
135 Mass. 589 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Commonwealth v. Gilson
128 Mass. 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)