Morrison v. Barron Furniture Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Morrison v. Barron Furniture Co.

1 A.2d 182, 136 Me. 509, 1938 Me. LEXIS 73

DecidedAugust 12, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.2d 182 (Morrison v. Barron Furniture Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrison v. Barron Furniture Co., 1 A.2d 182, 136 Me. 509, 1938 Me. LEXIS 73 (Me. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The action is in trover, for the value of certain articles of household furniture: plea the general issue, and averment of absence of title in plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s husband, on cross-examination by defendant’s counsel,' was asked, “You understood perfectly that this was not Mrs. Morrison’s first marriage?” Subsequent to objection the court excluded the question, and granted an exception.

The case shows that plaintiff was formerly the wife of a brother of her present husband, and Exhibit C., printed therewith may [510]*510somewhere be offered in evidence as tending to prove untrue statements on the part of someone. There is no evidence that the exhibit was offered, identified or used in the case.

B. W. Blanchard, for plaintiff. Harvey D. Eaton, for defendant.

The matter inquired into, and bringing up the exception, is evidence incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal fact or matter in dispute, title to the property. It is wholly collateral. Exception overruled.

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

The action is in trover, for the value of certain articles of household furniture: plea the general issue, and averment of absence of title in plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s husband, on cross-examination by defendant’s counsel,' was asked, “You understood perfectly that this was not Mrs. Morrison’s first marriage?” Subsequent to objection the court excluded the question, and granted an exception.

The case shows that plaintiff was formerly the wife of a brother of her present husband, and Exhibit C., printed therewith may [510]*510somewhere be offered in evidence as tending to prove untrue statements on the part of someone. There is no evidence that the exhibit was offered, identified or used in the case.

B. W. Blanchard, for plaintiff. Harvey D. Eaton, for defendant.

The matter inquired into, and bringing up the exception, is evidence incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal fact or matter in dispute, title to the property. It is wholly collateral. Exception overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.2d 182, 136 Me. 509, 1938 Me. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-barron-furniture-co-me-1938.