Emerton v. Andrews

4 Mass. 653
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

* By the Court.

We are satisfied that the rejection [ *654 ] of the witness in this case was right. If the plaintiff, who produced Beals, prevailed, then Beals would be discharged from any demand for his board by the plaintiff; and in an action brought against him by the plaintiff for his board, he might give in evidence the judgment on the verdict in this cause, and satisfaction of it, to defeat the action. But if Beals was not interested, it would have been useless to the plaintiff to have sworn him; for, laying the statute of frauds out of the question, his testimony would have proved, if any thing, a special contract made by the defendant with the plaintiff to pay for the witness’s board in goods, which testimony would have disproved the contract on which the action was brought.

Judgment must be entered on the verdict

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

Emerton v. Andrews, 4 Mass. 653 (Mass. 1808).

4 Mass. 653 (Emerton v. Andrews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blake v. Hawkins
98 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Willcox v. Smith
26 Barb. 316 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
Cadwell v. Meek
17 Ill. 220 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1855)
Alexander v. Trask
20 Ala. 805 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1852)
Christy v. Smith
23 Vt. 663 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1851)
Hallet v. O'Brien
3 Ala. 455 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1842)
Benedict v. Hecox
18 Wend. 258 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
Winslow v. Kelley
12 Me. 513 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1835)
Hewitt v. Lovering
12 Me. 201 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1835)
Henarie v. Maxwell
10 N.J.L. 353 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1829)
Smyth v. Bradstreet
5 Cow. 213 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Marquand v. Webb
16 Johns. 89 (New York Supreme Court, 1819)