Homes v. Dana

12 Mass. 190
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1815·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Curia.

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

Homes v. Dana, 12 Mass. 190 (Mass. 1815).

12 Mass. 190 (Homes v. Dana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kristin Perry v. Dennis Hollingsworth
18 F.4th 622 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)
Capelle v. Trinity M. E. Church
5 F. Cas. 38 (D. Delaware, 1875)
Downey v. Hinchman
25 Ind. 453 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1865)
Pryor v. Cain
25 Ill. 292 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1861)
Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan
20 Barb. 155 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Curry v. Rogers
21 N.H. 247 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)
Barnes v. Perine
9 Barb. 202 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Robertson v. March
4 Ill. 198 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1841)
Congregational Society in Troy v. Goddard
7 N.H. 430 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1835)
President of Middlebury College v. Williamson
1 Vt. 212 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1828)
Bryant v. Goodnow
22 Mass. 228 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1827)
Trustees of Phillips Limerick Academy v. Davis
11 Mass. 113 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)