Kittredge v. Russell
114 Mass. 67
Opinion
The refusal to grant a continuance is not a subject of exception. Evidence of the defendant’s admissions is competent in support of the plaintiff’s case, and the witness may testify to the substance of them if he cannot remember the exact words. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff not being reported, it does not appear that there was a variance.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kittredge v. Russell, 114 Mass. 67 (Mass. 1873).
114 Mass. 67 (Kittredge v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Solomonsen
735 N.E.2d 411 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2000)
Commonwealth v. Bonomi
140 N.E.2d 140 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1957)
Colazzi v. Pearson
5 Mass. App. Div. 487 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.
129 N.E. 669 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Soper v. Manning
33 N.E. 516 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Childs v. New Haven & Northampton Co.
133 Mass. 253 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)