Eldridge v. Hawley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, payable to Parker L. Riggs, and indorsed, after maturity, to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, payable to Parker L. Riggs, and indorsed, after maturity, to the plaintiff. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Devens, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the following bill of exceptions was allowed: “ It was in evidence that the defendant, the payee, Riggs, and Francis Burr, were partners in business, under the name of Hawley, Burr & Riggs; that subsequently Riggs withdrew from the partnership ; that upon such withdrawal there were certain sums due Riggs for money advanced in the business by him, which the…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The ruling of the judge who presided at the trial, at the close of his charge, in reply to the request of the plaintiff, that, inasmuch as the books were not in the custody oi the plaintiff, no inference was to be drawn from their non-production, it being in the power of either party to summon the witness with the books, was not correct, considered as a legal proposition. Whether an inference should properly have been drawn from such non-production, either against the theory of the plaintiff, (which was that the sum of sixteen hundred dollars was due upon a settlement made upon the basis of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Providence & Worcester Railroad v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Feeney v. York Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Commonwealth v. CliffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Milliman v. Rochester Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Sturtevant v. WallackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.