Robbins v. Otis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the price of a quantity of timber sold to the defendant in 1808. The statute of limitations was pleaded, and the plaintiff, in order to take the case out of the statute, produced a witness who testified that the defendant said either, 11 if Ellison will say that I have had the timber,” or, “if the plaintiff will prove by Ellison that I have had it, I will pay for it,” but which of these two expressions was used, the witness could…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the price of a quantity of timber sold to the defendant in 1808. The statute of limitations was pleaded, and the plaintiff, in order to take the case out of the statute, produced a witness who testified that the defendant said either, 11 if Ellison will say that I have had the timber,” or, “if the plaintiff will prove by Ellison that I have had it, I will pay for it,” but which of these two expressions was used, the witness could not remember. The plaintiff then offered to prove that Ellison did say the defendant had had the timber, but this evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
Thacher and Warner now contended,
that it was a question for the jury, whether either, and which of the expressions, had been used by the defendant, and that the evidence rejected should have been received, to be considered by the jury or not, according as they should determine the first question. Jhjlwin v. Ulmer, 12 Mass. R. 22; Tyler v. Ulmer, ibid. 169.
But the whole Court, for the reason before given, were of opinion that the evidence in question was rightly rejected.
March 4th
Fletcher and Bliss for the defendant.1
See 1 Pick. 368, S. C
See Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (2d edit.) 368, and notes. A…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Aylwin v. UlmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815