Whitney v. Bacon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Whitney v. Bacon

75 Mass. 206

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Mass. 206 (Whitney v. Bacon) 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

Whitney v. Bacon, 75 Mass. 206 (Mass. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Bigelow, J.

The general role is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. To render it competent in cases of boundary, it must fall within the exception to the rule laid down in Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 228. Flagg v. Mason, 8 Gray, 557, & cases cited. In the present case, the person, whose declarations concerning the boundary of the close in question were admitted, was not in possession of the land when he made the statements which were offered in evidence. They do not therefore come within the exception, and were erroneously admitted.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Bigelow, J.

The general role is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. To render it competent in cases of boundary, it must fall within the exception to the rule laid down in Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 228. Flagg v. Mason, 8 Gray, 557, & cases cited. In the present case, the person, whose declarations concerning the boundary of the close in question were admitted, was not in possession of the land when he made the statements which were offered in evidence. They do not therefore come within the exception, and were erroneously admitted.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Mass. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-bacon-mass-1857.