Witter v. Witter
10 Mass. 223
Opinion
We think the Circuit Court of Common Pleas were too scrupulous in refusing to admit the evidence offered by the defendant in the case before us, in support of his account filed. Board and lodging, washing, &c., are all included within the meaning of goods delivered and services performed. If there had been a specific charge for the rent of a room, that might well have been excluded. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is to be had at the bar of this Court,
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Witter v. Witter, 10 Mass. 223 (Mass. 1813).
10 Mass. 223 (Witter v. Witter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ryder v. Warren
3 N.E.2d 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Flannigan v. Monongahela Tie & Lumber Co.
87 S.E. 165 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1915)
Berkowsky v. Specter
79 Ill. App. 215 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Davis v. Dyer
60 N.H. 400 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1880)
Hall v. Glidden
39 Me. 445 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1855)
Tremain v. Edwards
61 Mass. 414 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1851)