Walker v. Curtis

116 Mass. 98, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 31
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 1, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 98 (Walker v. Curtis) 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
Walker v. Curtis, 116 Mass. 98, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 31 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The findings of the presiding judge upon preliminary questions of fact material to the competency of evidence introduced at the trial are not open to revision in this court, and the bill of exceptions does not show that either of his rulings was erroneous in matter of law.

I. If the papers in Pratt’s handwriting were memoranda of the results of his examinations and calculations, or minutes which helped to explain such memoranda made by him, in the scope of his employment as surveyor under the agreement of both parties to this action, they might properly, he being dead, be admitted in evidence. Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161, 166, 168. Washington Bank v. Prescott, 20 Pick. 389. Jones v. Howard, 3 Allen, 223. Eastern Union Railway v. Symonds, 5 Exch. 237.

2. The plaintiff’s books do not appear to have been admitted as independent evidence of the whole number of days’ work, but in connection with his foreman’s estimates of the number of yards one man would dig in a day, and how many yards should be deducted from the aggregate on account of some of his men not being actually occupied in digging. Such estimates, made by a witness of competent knowledge, might be submitted to the consideration of the jury. Carpenter v. Wait, 11 Cush. 257. Holyoke Paper Co. v. Conklin, 2 Allen, 326. Cornell v. Dean, 105 Mass. 435. Miller v. Smith, 112 Mass.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Giles v. Dirobbio
46 A.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1946)
Livingston v. State
192 So. 327 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Coghlan v. White
236 Mass. 165 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Wightman v. . Campbell
112 N.E. 184 (New York Court of Appeals, 1916)
McKarren v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
80 N.E. 477 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Dexter v. Thayer
75 N.E. 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Hupfer v. National Distilling Co.
96 N.W. 809 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)
Harmon v. Decker
68 P. 11 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)
Hampton v. Norfolk & Western Railroad
120 N.C. 534 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Smith v. Hawley
66 N.W. 942 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Smith v. Brown
24 N.E. 31 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Bradford v. Cunard Steamship Co.
16 N.E. 719 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Commonwealth v. Robinson
16 N.E. 452 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Stevens v. Miles
8 N.E. 426 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Boston Water Power Co. v. Hanlon
132 Mass. 483 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Blair v. Inhabitants of Pelham
118 Mass. 420 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 98, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-curtis-mass-1874.