Low v. Low

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Low v. Low

83 N.E. 406, 197 Mass. 158, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 682

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 N.E. 406 (Low v. Low) 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

Low v. Low, 83 N.E. 406, 197 Mass. 158, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 682 (Mass. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Losing, J.

The statement of the defence set up in the amendment to the answer was insufficient as matter of pleading. But that is not a reason for excluding competent evidence of its truth. Groodsell v. Trumbull, 135 Mass. 99. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176. See in this connection Ward v. Merriam, 193 Mass. 135. See also Chace v. Sherman, 119 Mass. 387, where it was held that the insufficiency of a declaration as matter of pleading cannot be raised by a request for instructions to the jury; and Huntress v. Burbank, 111 Mass. 213, where an unsuccessful attempt was made to raise that question by a request for a ruling at the beginning of the trial. The evidence before the court in Robinson v. Trofitter, 106 Mass. 51 (relied on by the plaintiff), was excluded because the affirmative defence in proof of which it was offered was not set up in the answer at alL

Exceptions sustained.

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

Losing, J.

The statement of the defence set up in the amendment to the answer was insufficient as matter of pleading. But that is not a reason for excluding competent evidence of its truth. Groodsell v. Trumbull, 135 Mass. 99. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176. See in this connection Ward v. Merriam, 193 Mass. 135. See also Chace v. Sherman, 119 Mass. 387, where it was held that the insufficiency of a declaration as matter of pleading cannot be raised by a request for instructions to the jury; and Huntress v. Burbank, 111 Mass. 213, where an unsuccessful attempt was made to raise that question by a request for a ruling at the beginning of the trial. The evidence before the court in Robinson v. Trofitter, 106 Mass. 51 (relied on by the plaintiff), was excluded because the affirmative defence in proof of which it was offered was not set up in the answer at alL

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.E. 406, 197 Mass. 158, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/low-v-low-mass-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack