Donelson v. Taylor

25 Mass. 390
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 25, 1829
StatusPublished

This text of 25 Mass. 390 (Donelson v. Taylor) 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
Donelson v. Taylor, 25 Mass. 390 (Mass. 1829).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There appears to have been sufficient evidence that the note was lost, to let the plaintiff in to prove the contents. The affidavit of Donelson was properly received, in order to satisfy the Court that the note was not in his possession nor anywhere within his control. The evidence of the loss was rightly directed to the Court. And as to the clerk’s not saying he had searched his files, it ought to be taken as a fact that a search was made. His testimony would have been a fraud on the Court, if he had not looked among his files for the note.

The testimony of Barber would have been rejected, if it had been offered to the jury, because his indorsement of the writ made him interested. But if his affidavit might not, like that of the plaintiff, have been received on a preliminary question to the Court, still the objection came too late, being after he was sworn and examined. This was a waiver of the objection, the evidence of his interest beiftg within reach of the defendant’s csunsel when he was offered as a witness.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Mass. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donelson-v-taylor-mass-1829.