Hadley v. Watson

9 N.E. 806, 143 Mass. 27, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 10
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 10, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 806 (Hadley v. Watson) 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
Hadley v. Watson, 9 N.E. 806, 143 Mass. 27, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 10 (Mass. 1886).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The 80th rule of this court requires that a petition to prove exceptions shall be “ verified by affidavit.” The affidavit in this case is insufficient. The affiants do not take the responsibility of stating that the facts are true. They do not state that they know or recollect any of the facts. They [28]*28could not be indicted for perjury if it appeared that their only information was mere hearsay. Any person acting upon such information, however untrustworthy, could take such an oath without incurring any responsibility.

The right to prove exceptions has always been regarded as strictissimi juris. The purpose of a petition to prove exceptions is to contradict and control the statement of a judge made under his oath of office and his official responsibility. It is fit that, before this court entertains such a petition, some person with a knowledge of the facts should make oath to their truth. This was the purpose and meaning of the 30th rule. As the petitioners have not complied with the rule, their petition must be dismissed. Tufts v. Newton, 117 Mass. 68.

Petition dismissed,.

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

Related

Mooney v. Jud's Home Insulation Co.
330 N.E.2d 485 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
O'Flanagan v. Smith
59 N.E.2d 9 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
O'Flanagan v. Smith
9 Mass. App. Div. 187 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Dubois v. Boston & Maine Railroad
53 N.E.2d 553 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Levine
29 N.E.2d 192 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Andersen
29 N.E.2d 194 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Conole v. Johnson
2 Mass. App. Div. 592 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Parsons v. A. C. Titus Co.
2 Mass. App. Div. 387 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Keany v. Inhabitants of Watertown
2 Mass. App. Div. 164 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Tolman v. Crowell
193 N.E. 60 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Dealtry v. Selectmen of Watertown
180 N.E. 621 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Mclaughlin v. Levenbaum
248 Mass. 170 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Fuller
219 Mass. 209 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Bishop
94 N.E. 479 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Lord v. Rowse
80 N.E. 822 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Graffam v. Cobb
56 A. 645 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)
Clement v. Bullens
34 N.E. 173 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
American Carpet Lining Co. v. Chipman
16 N.E. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Kaiser v. Alexander
144 Mass. 71 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 N.E. 806, 143 Mass. 27, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadley-v-watson-mass-1886.