Pickering v. Reynolds

119 Mass. 111, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 83
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 4, 1875·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

If the declarations of the elder Reynolds in disparagement of his title were made before the demandant’s attachment, they were clearly admissible in evidence against the demandant who claimed under him, and the bill of exceptions does not show that they were made since the attachment.

The declarations of the same person, made at a different time, had no tendency to contradict the first declarations, and, if they were admissible at all, it was because they tended to prove the [114]*114demandant’s original case. Kingsford v. Hood, 105 Mass. 495. The demandant did not except to their exclusion when offered in chief, and has no right of exception to their exclusion when offered in rebuttal. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 297. Wallace v. Taunton Street Railway, ante, 91.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Pickering v. Reynolds, 119 Mass. 111, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 83 (Mass. 1875).

119 Mass. 111 (Pickering v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abbott v. Walker
90 N.E. 405 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
First Baptist Church of Sharon v. Harper
77 N.E. 778 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Fall v. Fall
60 A. 718 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1905)
Ellis v. Stone
23 S.W. 405 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Rowell v. Doggett
10 N.E. 182 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Cook v. Knowles
38 Mich. 316 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)