Higgins v. Andrews

121 Mass. 293, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 357
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 10, 1876·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The order of proof was in the discretion of the court. The evidence objected to does not appear to have been admitted for any other purpose than to show that the plaintiff had money which he might have lent to the defendants. If the defendants denied that the plaintiff had such money, this evidence was competent. If not, it was immaterial. The bill of exceptions does not show that the defendants could have been prejudiced by its admission. Exceptions overruled.

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

Higgins v. Andrews, 121 Mass. 293, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 357 (Mass. 1876).

121 Mass. 293 (Higgins v. Andrews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prifti v. Hendrick
51 N.E.2d 322 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Commonwealth v. Galvin
39 N.E.2d 656 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Soja v. Fligier
158 N.E. 273 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Worrell v. Baldwin Chain & Manufacturing Co.
222 Mass. 355 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Dick v. . Marvin
81 N.E. 162 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)
Bliss v. Johnson
38 N.E. 446 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Commonwealth v. Fenno
134 Mass. 217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Costello v. Crowell
133 Mass. 352 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)