Fuller v. Damon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fuller v. Damon

135 Mass. 586, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 145

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 Mass. 586 (Fuller v. Damon) 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

Fuller v. Damon, 135 Mass. 586, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 145 (Mass. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The statutes provide that depositions of witnesses within the State may be taken by either party in a civil case, where the witness lives more than thirty miles from the place of trial, or is about to go out of the State and not to return in time for the trial, or is sick, infirm or aged, upon giving due [587]*587notice to the other party. Gen. Sts. c. 131, §§ 17 & seq. Pub. Sts. c. 169, §§ & 23 seq.

It is also provided that the courts may make proper and convenient rules and regulations concerning the taking and using depositions, not inconsistent with the provisions of law. Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 31. Pub. Sts. c. 169, § 37.

Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court, of the Court of Common Pleas, and of the Superior Court, have existed from an early period of our history, providing, in substance, that depositions of witnesses within the Commonwealth, but out of the town in which the court is, holden, cannot be taken in term time, unless by special order of the court. General Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court, of 1820, Rule 12; 16 Mass. 374. Rules of 1836, Rule 8; 24 Pick. 386. Rules of 1860, Rule 8; 14 Gray, 342. Rules of 1870, Rule 19; 104 Mass. 562. These rules have regulated the practice of this court for many years, and have never been regarded as unreasonable or invalid.

The ninth rule of the Superior Court, by necessary implication, prohibits the taking of the deposition of a witness within the Commonwealth, and out of the town in which the court is holden, in term time, unless by special order of the court. This construction gives meaning to the rule, which upon any other construction would be without force, and is the one which has always been adopted in practice. It follows that, as the deposition offered by the defendant was taken in violation of the rule, it was properly rejected by the presiding justice of the Superior Court. Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, C. J.

The statutes provide that depositions of witnesses within the State may be taken by either party in a civil case, where the witness lives more than thirty miles from the place of trial, or is about to go out of the State and not to return in time for the trial, or is sick, infirm or aged, upon giving due [587]*587notice to the other party. Gen. Sts. c. 131, §§ 17 & seq. Pub. Sts. c. 169, §§ & 23 seq.

It is also provided that the courts may make proper and convenient rules and regulations concerning the taking and using depositions, not inconsistent with the provisions of law. Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 31. Pub. Sts. c. 169, § 37.

Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court, of the Court of Common Pleas, and of the Superior Court, have existed from an early period of our history, providing, in substance, that depositions of witnesses within the Commonwealth, but out of the town in which the court is, holden, cannot be taken in term time, unless by special order of the court. General Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court, of 1820, Rule 12; 16 Mass. 374. Rules of 1836, Rule 8; 24 Pick. 386. Rules of 1860, Rule 8; 14 Gray, 342. Rules of 1870, Rule 19; 104 Mass. 562. These rules have regulated the practice of this court for many years, and have never been regarded as unreasonable or invalid.

The ninth rule of the Superior Court, by necessary implication, prohibits the taking of the deposition of a witness within the Commonwealth, and out of the town in which the court is holden, in term time, unless by special order of the court. This construction gives meaning to the rule, which upon any other construction would be without force, and is the one which has always been adopted in practice. It follows that, as the deposition offered by the defendant was taken in violation of the rule, it was properly rejected by the presiding justice of the Superior Court. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 Mass. 586, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-damon-mass-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack