Capron v. Anness

136 Mass. 271
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 30, 1884·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

If there is any exception to what took place at the trial properly before us, it must be overruled. Supposing that the allegation that fifty dollars was due Solomon would have been bad on demurrer, for want of an averment of consideration, an objection to the informality could not be taken in the form of an objection to evidence in support of it. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176, 181. Chace v. Sherman, 119 Mass. 387, 391. Furthermore, the evidence would have been admissible, in any event, for another purpose, to prove the amount for which the order purported to be given, as matter which necessarily rested in paroi.

The motion for a new trial discloses nothing which is open to revision here. See Haverhill Loan & Fund Association v. Cronin, 4 Allen, 141; Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Capron v. Anness, 136 Mass. 271 (Mass. 1884).

136 Mass. 271 (Capron v. Anness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Teregno
124 N.E. 889 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Lopes v. Connolly
97 N.E. 80 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Garrity v. Higgins
58 N.E. 1010 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
May v. Wood
172 Mass. 11 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Sullivan v. Bar Ass'n
49 N.E. 916 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Soper v. Manning
33 N.E. 516 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Sherman v. Hanno
28 A. 18 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Commonwealth v. Green
138 Mass. 200 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)