Quinley v. Atkins
This text of 75 Mass. 370 (Quinley v. Atkins) 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
There is no legal ground for these exceptions. The objection to the admissibility of the deposition must be overruled, on the authority of Amherst Bank v. Root, 2 Met. 522, which case cannot be distinguished from this. And the objection to the proof of the notice that was given of the filing of interrogatories must also be overruled. When an instrument to be proved is itself a notice, it may be proved without giving notice to produce it. So said Mr. Justice Bayley, in the case of Colling v. Treweek, 9 D. & R. 460, and 6 B. & C. 398, and so say the treatises on evidence. 2 Phil. Ev. (6th Amer. ed.) 225. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 561. 2 Stark. Ev. (4th Amer. ed.) 974. See also Swaine v. Lewis, 5 Tyrw. 998, and 2 Cr., M. & R. 261.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 Mass. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinley-v-atkins-mass-1857.