Moore v. Holland

36 Me. 14
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1853·Published

Opinion

Shepley, C. J. -

This Court has decided that, in our practice, no rule exists by which a party is prevented from introducing cumulative testimony upon any point after he has rested his case and testimony has been introduced by his opponent; while the right of the Court is recognized, (in the exercise of its judicial discretion,) to enforce such a rule after giving seasonable notice that it will be enforced. In this case such a rule appears to have been enforced, and testimony material to sustain the plaintiff’s case appears to have been excluded, without previous notice of such a rule.

Exceptions sustained. Verdict set aside and new trial granted.

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

Moore v. Holland, 36 Me. 14 (Me. 1853).

36 Me. 14 (Moore v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.