Homes v. Dana
Opinion
As to the first objection taken by the counsel for the defendant, that the contract read in evidence was not admissible, because it was between other parties, it cannot prevail. The action is not founded upon the contract; but this was introduced collaterally, to show the circumstances under which the money was paid by the intestate to the use of the defendant. It is, in this respect, like a note or bond, paid by one not a party, at the request of the obligor or promissor. In such a case, there can be no doubt the instrument would be proper evidence, although between other parties.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
12 Mass. 190 (Homes v. Dana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.