Silverstein v. O'Brien

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Silverstein v. O'Brien

43 N.E. 496, 165 Mass. 512, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 310

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 1, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 43 N.E. 496 (Silverstein v. O'Brien) 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.

Bluebook

Silverstein v. O'Brien, 43 N.E. 496, 165 Mass. 512, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 310 (Mass. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

The defendant is a constable, and is sued for the conversion of a small stock of goods which he attached on a writ against the plaintiff’s father. The only question in issue at the trial was whether the goods belonged to the plaintiff or to her father. To corroborate her testimony that she owned the property, and to establish her title, the plaintiff was allowed to put in evidence sundry papers purporting to be receipts for rent paid for the premises where the goods were kept, signed by former owners of the real estate, and reciting that the rent was received from her.

If we assume in favor of the plaintiff that proof of her payment of the rent of the place where the stock of goods was kept would be competent evidence to show her title, we are of opinion that the receipts were wrongly admitted. They were nothing more than unsworn declarations of third persons, who had no relation to the defendant nor to the controversy before the court. They were of the nature of hearsay, and were incompetent as against the defendant. Commonwealth v. Cannon, 97 Mass. 337. Lyon v. Manning, 133 Mass. 439. McAvoy v. Wright, 137 Mass. 207. Brooks v. Duggan, 149 Mass. 304.

We cannot say that they did not affect the verdict of the jury. The reasonable inference is that they were given weight in the decision.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Knowlton, J.

The defendant is a constable, and is sued for the conversion of a small stock of goods which he attached on a writ against the plaintiff’s father. The only question in issue at the trial was whether the goods belonged to the plaintiff or to her father. To corroborate her testimony that she owned the property, and to establish her title, the plaintiff was allowed to put in evidence sundry papers purporting to be receipts for rent paid for the premises where the goods were kept, signed by former owners of the real estate, and reciting that the rent was received from her.

If we assume in favor of the plaintiff that proof of her payment of the rent of the place where the stock of goods was kept would be competent evidence to show her title, we are of opinion that the receipts were wrongly admitted. They were nothing more than unsworn declarations of third persons, who had no relation to the defendant nor to the controversy before the court. They were of the nature of hearsay, and were incompetent as against the defendant. Commonwealth v. Cannon, 97 Mass. 337. Lyon v. Manning, 133 Mass. 439. McAvoy v. Wright, 137 Mass. 207. Brooks v. Duggan, 149 Mass. 304.

We cannot say that they did not affect the verdict of the jury. The reasonable inference is that they were given weight in the decision.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E. 496, 165 Mass. 512, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-obrien-mass-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack