Trull v. True

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Trull v. True

33 Me. 367

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1851

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 33 Me. 367 (Trull v. True) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trull v. True, 33 Me. 367 (Me. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Testimony cannot be excluded as irrelevant, which would have a tendency, however remote, to establish the probability, or improbability of the fact in controversy.

S had signed the name of II to a promissory note. The question before the jury, was, whether II had given S authority so to do. Held, that evidence was relevant, which tended to show that H had in his hands some business operations of S, as security for liabilities, and was to have a commission upon advances made by him for S, in the prosecution of such business, and that the note was given for articles in aid of that business.

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

Testimony cannot be excluded as irrelevant, which would have a tendency, however remote, to establish the probability, or improbability of the fact in controversy.

S had signed the name of II to a promissory note. The question before the jury, was, whether II had given S authority so to do. Held, that evidence was relevant, which tended to show that H had in his hands some business operations of S, as security for liabilities, and was to have a commission upon advances made by him for S, in the prosecution of such business, and that the note was given for articles in aid of that business.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Me. 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trull-v-true-me-1851.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack