Mosseau v. Landy
58 N.E. 182, 177 Mass. 104, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1003
Opinion
The only question is whether there was error prejudicial to the defendant in the exclusion of the question put to Bassett as to the value of the extra work done by the plaintiff.
The bill of exceptions fails to show what the answer would have been, or what the defendant offered or expected to prove by it. We cannot say, therefore, that the defendant has been harmed by the exclusion of the question. Farnum v. Pitcher, 151 Mass. 470.
Fxceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mosseau v. Landy, 58 N.E. 182, 177 Mass. 104, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1003 (Mass. 1900).
58 N.E. 182 (Mosseau v. Landy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Magnolia Metal Co. v. Gale
78 N.E. 128 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)