Chapin v. Taft

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Chapin v. Taft

35 Mass. 379

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Mass. 379 (Chapin v. Taft) 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

Chapin v. Taft, 35 Mass. 379 (Mass. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, in order to lay a foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of a letter written by the defendant to a third person, filed his own affidavit setting forth, that such third person told him that the letter was lost. It was resolved, that the affidavit was insufficient for that purpose, as the loss could have been proved by competent evidence, and the affidavit was mere hearsay. See Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 5 Pick. 436; Poignand v. Smith, 8 Pick. 278; Parkins v. Cobbet, 1 Carr. & Payne, 282.

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

The plaintiff, in order to lay a foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of a letter written by the defendant to a third person, filed his own affidavit setting forth, that such third person told him that the letter was lost. It was resolved, that the affidavit was insufficient for that purpose, as the loss could have been proved by competent evidence, and the affidavit was mere hearsay. See Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 5 Pick. 436; Poignand v. Smith, 8 Pick. 278; Parkins v. Cobbet, 1 Carr. & Payne, 282.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mass. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapin-v-taft-mass-1836.