Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

96 N.E. 1040, 210 Mass. 500, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 1000
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 96 N.E. 1040 (Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) 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.

Bluebook
Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 96 N.E. 1040, 210 Mass. 500, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 1000 (Mass. 1912).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

In order for the declaration of Sloane, the deceased, to become admissible, it was necessary for the presiding judge to find that the declaration was made in good faith, before the commencement of the action and upon the personal knowledge of the declarant. E. L. c. 175, § 66. The statement was excluded because the presiding judge was not satisfied that these conditions of the statute had been complied with.

We cannot say that the presiding judge in coming to this conclusion was not justified by the evidence. He saw the witness McPhail, and may not have been satisfied that his statement, that the interview with Sloane took place before the commencement of the action, was exact, or he may not have been satisfied in view of all the evidence in the case that the statement of the deceased was made in good faith. The burden was upon the party offering the evidence to satisfy the presiding judge that there had been compliance with the conditions of the statute.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Shaw
202 N.E.2d 785 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1964)
Cummings v. Moore
25 N.E.2d 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Kelley v. Jordan Marsh Co.
179 N.E. 299 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Commonwealth v. Wakelin
230 Mass. 567 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
McSweeney v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.
228 Mass. 563 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Slotofski v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
102 N.E. 417 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 N.E. 1040, 210 Mass. 500, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1912.