North End Savings Bank v. Snow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Norfolk dated May 12, 1905. There was a trial before Hardy, J., upon agreed facts. As stated in the opinion, the presiding judge refused to allow the defendants to prove further facts, which were offered by him, on the ground that they were immaterial, directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This is an action on a mortgage note by the mortgagee .against the mortgagors. Certain facts were agreed, reserving the question of their materiality, and reserving also the right of the parties to introduce further evidence. The defendants offered to show certain other facts in addition to those agreed upon. The presiding judge ruled that the facts, if shown, would be immaterial, and excluded the evidence thus offered. No other evidence was introduced than that contained in the facts agreed upon, and the presiding judge directed a. verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Murray v. . MarshallNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Shepherd v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Rice v. SandersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Spencer v. . SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Travers v. DorrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Seppala & Aho Construction Co. v. PetersenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Santoro v. KleinbergerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Phillips v. VorenbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Codman v. DelandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- City Institution for Savings v. KelilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.