Robbins v. Otis
This text of 20 Mass. 4 (Robbins v. Otis) 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
Thacher and Warner now contended,
that it was a question for the jury, whether either, and which of the expressions, had been used by the defendant, and that the evidence rejected should have been received, to be considered by the jury or not, according as they should determine the first question. Jhjlwin v. Ulmer, 12 Mass. R. 22; Tyler v. Ulmer, ibid. 169.
But the whole Court, for the reason before given, were of opinion that the evidence in question was rightly rejected.
March 4th
Fletcher and Bliss for the defendant.1
See 1 Pick. 368, S. C
See Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (2d edit.) 368, and notes. A promise, to take a case out of the statute of limitations, must now he in writing and signed by the party chargeable thereby. Revised Statutes, 700, c. 120, § 13. But the same language which before would take a case out of the statute of limitations, will now remove it from its operation if reduced to writing. Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (2d ed.) 380, note 1. See also Dodson v. Mackay, 4 Nov. & Man. 327.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 Mass. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-otis-mass-1825.