Higgins v. Andrews
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note, dated May 18, 1868, arid alleged to have been made by the defendants, under the firm name of Andrews Brothers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the defendant, N. M. Andrews, the only party defending, introduced evidence tending to prove that there was no consideration for the note.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note, dated May 18, 1868, arid alleged to have been made by the defendants, under the firm name of Andrews Brothers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the defendant, N. M. Andrews, the only party defending, introduced evidence tending to prove that there was no consideration for the note. The plaintiff then offered evidence tending to prove that he, some time in May, 1868, lent the defendants $475, which was the consideration of the note declared on, and then put in the testimony of one Symonds, the treasurer of the Salem Savings Bank, tending to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The order of proof was in the discretion of the court. The evidence objected to does not appear to have been admitted for any other purpose than to show that the plaintiff had money which he might have lent to the defendants. If the defendants denied that the plaintiff had such money, this evidence was competent. If not, it was immaterial. The bill of exceptions does not show that the defendants could have been prejudiced by its admission. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GalvinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Costello v. CrowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Commonwealth v. FennoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Worrell v. Baldwin Chain & Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Bliss v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.