Gage Manufacturing Co. v. Parr

138 Mass. 462, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 224
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 13, 1885·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

It does not appear that there was any error in excluding the question, “ What did Parr say to you in relation to the loans or notes which you made or indorsed for him when he got them from you.” As a general rule, declarations made by one defendant to the other are not competent against the plaintiff. If there was any feature of the case which rendered such declarations competent, it was the duty of the defendant to disclose it in the bill of exceptions. Parr was not a [464] witness, and his declarations were not admissible to contradict him. The bill of exceptions does not show what the declarations offered were, nor that they were material to any question in issue. The exceptions must therefore be overruled. Safford v. Grout, 120 Mass. 20. Exceptions overruled.

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

Gage Manufacturing Co. v. Parr, 138 Mass. 462, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 224 (Mass. 1885).

138 Mass. 462 (Gage Manufacturing Co. v. Parr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hathaway v. Tinkham
19 N.E. 18 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Kelley v. Highfield
14 P. 744 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)