Miller v. Gramatikakis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Miller v. Gramatikakis

170 N.E.2d 842, 341 Mass. 732, 1960 Mass. LEXIS 794

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 170 N.E.2d 842 (Miller v. Gramatikakis) 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

Miller v. Gramatikakis, 170 N.E.2d 842, 341 Mass. 732, 1960 Mass. LEXIS 794 (Mass. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of contract to recover a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff as a result of a loan to the defendant. The defendant pleaded illegality and in support of this defence introduced evidence that the loan was given in connection with gaming transactions. On conflicting evidence the judge found for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,480. The sole question for decision arises out of the defendant’s exceptions to the exclusion of certain evidence tending at most to corroborate [733]*733other evidence that the plaintiff was engaged in gambling activities. The extent to which snch corroboration should be permitted was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Sanderson v. Carroll, 238 Mass. 142,145. There was no abuse of discretion.

The case was submitted on briefs. Walter H. McLaughlin, for the defendant. Louis L. Bobrick, for the plaintiff.

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

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of contract to recover a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff as a result of a loan to the defendant. The defendant pleaded illegality and in support of this defence introduced evidence that the loan was given in connection with gaming transactions. On conflicting evidence the judge found for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,480. The sole question for decision arises out of the defendant’s exceptions to the exclusion of certain evidence tending at most to corroborate [733]*733other evidence that the plaintiff was engaged in gambling activities. The extent to which snch corroboration should be permitted was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Sanderson v. Carroll, 238 Mass. 142,145. There was no abuse of discretion.

The case was submitted on briefs. Walter H. McLaughlin, for the defendant. Louis L. Bobrick, for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.E.2d 842, 341 Mass. 732, 1960 Mass. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-gramatikakis-mass-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack