Home/Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/Liddle v. Old Lowell National Bank

Liddle v. Old Lowell National Bank

32 N.E. 954, 158 Mass. 15, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 220
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 32 N.E. 954 (Liddle v. Old Lowell National Bank) 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
Liddle v. Old Lowell National Bank, 32 N.E. 954, 158 Mass. 15, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 220 (Mass. 1893).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The question put to the doctor on cross-ex-animation, and the evidence of the witness Stackpole, were intended to show admissions or statements by the former more or less inconsistent with his testimony, in that they treated the plaintiff’s injury as less serious than he represented it on the stand. For this purpose, the questions were admissible. So far as the answers possibly could have prejudiced the plaintiff, if at all, it was by showing such an inconsistency. An inconsistency need not be expressed in contradictory propositions ; it is enough if the implications of what has been said tend in a different direction from what is sworn to.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Clemons
427 N.E.2d 761 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1981)
Joan Subecz v. David M. Curtis
483 F.2d 263 (First Circuit, 1973)
Commonwealth v. West
45 N.E.2d 260 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Kislowski v. Monkiewicz
37 N.E.2d 458 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
City of Boston v. Santosuosso
30 N.E.2d 278 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Langan v. Pianowski
29 N.E.2d 700 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Commonwealth v. Gallo
175 N.E. 718 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
McGrath v. Fash
244 Mass. 327 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Corsick v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
218 Mass. 144 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Smith v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.
96 N.E. 135 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. v. Chandler
95 N.E. 791 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 N.E. 954, 158 Mass. 15, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liddle-v-old-lowell-national-bank-mass-1893.