Inhabitants of Townsend v. Inhabitants of Pepperell

99 Mass. 40
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 99 Mass. 40 (Inhabitants of Townsend v. Inhabitants of Pepperell) 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
Inhabitants of Townsend v. Inhabitants of Pepperell, 99 Mass. 40 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Chapman, J.

The subject of the controversy in this case was the insanity of Mary Gilson in 1822, when she became of age. The testimony of Mr. Farrar in his deposition, that the people used to have a good deal of sympathy with her, was properly ruled out, because it was not pertinent to the issue. The opinions and hearsay statements in his other answers were also excluded properly. The same remark applies to Mrs. Shattuck’s answers, except a part of the fourteenth. But this answer was offered as a whole, and the part that is competent was not offered to be read separately from the rest.

The records of the hospital were properly admitted in evidence. Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161.

The question presented to the jury by the instructions of the court was, in substance, whether Mary Gilson, by reason of insanity, so far lost her self-control that she had no power to make choice of a settlement. The request for instructions contained illustrations which the court properly declined to adopt. Its substance was adopted, with proper modifications.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Barney
185 A.D. 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Worez v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
175 Iowa 1 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Ribas v. Revere Rubber Company
91 A. 58 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1914)
Delaney v. Framingham Gas, Fuel & Power Co.
88 N.E. 773 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
International & Great Northern Railroad v. Startz
94 S.W. 207 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Collins v. German-American Mutual Life Ass'n
86 S.W. 891 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Cashin v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
70 N.E. 930 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Phillips v. City of Boston
67 N.E. 250 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Hempton v. State
86 N.W. 596 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Snell v. United States
16 App. D.C. 501 (D.C. Circuit, 1900)
Donovan v. Boston & Maine Railroad
33 N.E. 583 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
City of Worcester v. Inhabitants of Northborough
5 N.E. 270 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Wright v. Wright
29 N.E. 380 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Wing v. Inhabitants of Chesterfield
116 Mass. 353 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 Mass. 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-townsend-v-inhabitants-of-pepperell-mass-1868.