Murphy v. Collins
This text of 121 Mass. 6 (Murphy v. Collins) 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.
Opinion
The bill of exceptions does not show any error of law in the ruling of the court below. The note having been made and delivered in the State of New York, and not appearing to be payable elsewhere, its validity depended on the law of that state. Stevenson v. Payne, 109 Mass. 378. What that [7]*7law was, was a question of fact, upon which no evidence appears to have been given at the trial, or can be introduced for the first time at the argument of the exceptions in this court. Knapp v. Abell, 10 Allen, 485. The contract was not void by the common law; and there is no presumption that the law of another state corresponds with a statute of this Commonwealth. Abell v. Douglass, 4 Denio, 305. Whitford v. Panama Railroad, 23 N. Y. 465. Ellis v. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186. Morrissey v. Wiggins Ferry Co. 47 Misso. 521. Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala. 527.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 Mass. 6, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-collins-mass-1876.