Barrus v. Phaneuf
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover extra compensation as an expert. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The jury must have found upon the evidence that the defendant engaged the plaintiff to go into court at a future day, and testify for him as an expert, in regard to a matter which the plaintiff had examined as a civil engineer. From the dates given, it would seem that this engagement was six weeks before the trial. The plaintiff agreed to do this, and *124talked over the matter, and went into court and testified, and during the progress of the 'trial advised the defendant’s attorney in regard to the questions to be asked to himself, and to the other witnesses.
At some time after he had so agreed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ex parte DementSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Buchman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Dodge v. StilesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- State v. TeipnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Flinn v. Prairie CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Ramacorti v. Boston Redevelopment AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
- Boynton v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
- Box Pond Ass'n v. Energy Facilities Siting BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
- State Highway Commission v. EarlSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Philler v. Waukesha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.