Dorne v. Southwork Manufacturing Co.

65 Mass. 205
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1853
StatusPublished

This text of 65 Mass. 205 (Dorne v. Southwork Manufacturing 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
Dorne v. Southwork Manufacturing Co., 65 Mass. 205 (Mass. 1853).

Opinion

Dewey, J.

The declarations of an agent are competent as evidence to charge the principal, only when they are a part of the res gestee. By this we understand that such declarations are evidence only where they relate to the identical contract that is the matter in controversy. A declaration to another party in reference to another contract, and made at a prior time, does not fall within the rule admitting such evidence. Hence, what was said by the agent to Walbridge in a conversation with him as to the price he would pay for running these machines, is, as to this case, no part of the res gestee, and not admissible. The party is not excused in such case from proving the fact in the ordinary way by the testimony of the agent, if it be one pertinent to the issue. As cases strongly bearing upon this point, see Betham v. Benson, Gow’s Rep. 45 ; Fogg v. Child, 13 Barb. 246.

New trial ordered

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

Related

Fogg v. Child & Fitzhugh
13 Barb. 246 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Mass. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorne-v-southwork-manufacturing-co-mass-1853.