Flagg v. Mason

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Flagg v. Mason

74 Mass. 556

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Mass. 556 (Flagg v. Mason) 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

Flagg v. Mason, 74 Mass. 556 (Mass. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Bigelow, J.

The admission of the declarations of third persons, not parties to a suit, in relation to boundaries of land, is an exception to the general rule of law which excludes hear say evidence. The limits of this exception, as understood in this commonwealth, were defined and stated with accuracy in Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223, and have been since steadfastly adhered to. Bartlett v. Emerson, 7 Gray, 174. Ware v. Brookhouse, 7 Gray, 454. The declarations admitted at the trial of this case do not come within the exception. The decisive objection to their competency is, that it does not appear that the person who made them was deceased. For aught that is shown he was still living, and might have been called as a witness to the nature and extent , of his own occupation of the premises in dispute. His statements on the subject to third persons were clearly incompetent evidence.

Exceptions sustained

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

Bigelow, J.

The admission of the declarations of third persons, not parties to a suit, in relation to boundaries of land, is an exception to the general rule of law which excludes hear say evidence. The limits of this exception, as understood in this commonwealth, were defined and stated with accuracy in Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223, and have been since steadfastly adhered to. Bartlett v. Emerson, 7 Gray, 174. Ware v. Brookhouse, 7 Gray, 454. The declarations admitted at the trial of this case do not come within the exception. The decisive objection to their competency is, that it does not appear that the person who made them was deceased. For aught that is shown he was still living, and might have been called as a witness to the nature and extent , of his own occupation of the premises in dispute. His statements on the subject to third persons were clearly incompetent evidence.

Exceptions sustained

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Mass. 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-v-mason-mass-1857.