Vail v. Nickerson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In this action, which was on contract, Fuller, of counsel for the defendant, moved for a new trial; one of the grounds of which motion was the admission by the judge, at the trial, of a deposition of a M. Coquebat, taken in France, and which was objected to, as containing no evidence that an oath had been administered to the deponent.
Read the full summary
In this action, which was on contract, Fuller, of counsel for the defendant, moved for a new trial; one of the grounds of which motion was the admission by the judge, at the trial, of a deposition of a M. Coquebat, taken in France, and which was objected to, as containing no evidence that an oath had been administered to the deponent. The deposition began thus : “ jDefait le sieur Coquebat a la moine droite levee, declare,” &c.; and it concluded thus: “ Telle est sa declaration, qu’apres lecture il a reconnue ajjime et signee. La minute est signee G. Coquebat.” “De laquelle declaration…
1Per curiam
When a plaintiff in an action upon contract is delayed of his judgment by the unsuccessful motion of the defendant for a new trial, or when the defendant fails of establishing exceptions, &c., the clerk shall of course add to the amount found due by the verdict, interest thereon from the time it was returned to the day of entering the judgment.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hawkes v. LackeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Peirce v. RoweSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818
- Johnson v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Nelson v. Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1937
- Williams v. President, Directors of American BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1842
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.