Hale v. Huse
This text of 76 Mass. 99 (Hale v. Huse) 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.
Opinion
The proceedings to enforce Brown’s lien were the basis of the claim now in suit, and evidence of those proceedings was therefore rightly admitted.
The statement of the defendant’s attorney was competent evidence against his principal, as an admission about a matter in which he was an authorized agent.
The evidence of the arbitrators was not offered to impeach their award, but to show that this claim was not included in it; and for this purpose was clearly admissible. And the obligation of Huse to Hale, now sought to be enforced, could not have been embraced in the submission to arbitration, because it did not become a .debt until Hale had paid Brown. Hale could not safely pay Brown till judgment; but then it became the duty of Huse to save Brown harmless. This he did not do.
Huse knew of Brown’s claim, and therefore no notice to him was necessary. And the costs were rightly included, for Huse might have stopped them at any time by paying Brown’s claim,
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
76 Mass. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-huse-mass-1857.