Smith v. Inhabitants of Holyoke

112 Mass. 517
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

GbAY, C. J.

Upon the testimony of the plaintiff that she did not know the terms of the paper signed by her until it was read at the trial, the offer to return the money paid her was made within a reasonable time, if any return was necessary.

The plaintiff’s testimony as to the reasons for destroying the letters was sufficient to warrant the presiding judge in finding, as matter of fact, that they were not destroyed with any fraudulent or improper intent. Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 3 Met. 332. And his finding upon that question of fact cannot be revised by this court. Exceptions overruled.

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

Smith v. Inhabitants of Holyoke, 112 Mass. 517 (Mass. 1873).

112 Mass. 517 (Smith v. Inhabitants of Holyoke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crane Company v. Newman
37 N.E.2d 732 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1941)
Dante State Bank v. Calenda
183 A. 878 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1936)
J. Weil & Co. v. Quidnick Manufacturing Co.
80 A. 447 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1911)
Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad v. Howard
14 App. D.C. 262 (D.C. Circuit, 1899)
Murphy v. Olberding
78 N.W. 205 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
Wagner v. National Life Ins. Co. of Montpelier
90 F. 395 (Sixth Circuit, 1898)
Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
36 L.R.A. 442 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
36 N.E. 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Peaslee v. Peaslee
17 N.E. 506 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
O'Donnell v. Inhabitants of Clinton
14 N.E. 747 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Mullen v. Old Colony Railroad
127 Mass. 86 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)