Ruhe v. Burnell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against Josiah Burnell and Daniel Prescott as co-partners, on an account annexed for quadrupeds, birds and fishes sold the defendants. All the items of the account, except the last, were under date of April 15, 1874, and the last was dated May 9, 1874. The defendants filed separate answers, each containing a general denial.
Read the full summary
Contract against Josiah Burnell and Daniel Prescott as co-partners, on an account annexed for quadrupeds, birds and fishes sold the defendants. All the items of the account, except the last, were under date of April 15, 1874, and the last was dated May 9, 1874. The defendants filed separate answers, each containing a general denial. The case was referred to an auditor, who found against the defendant Burnell, and in favor of the defendant Prescott, on the ground that he was not a partner of Burnell at the time the articles were sold. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J.,…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
The evidence rejected consisted either of writings executed after the date of the alleged sales, or of declarations made by one of the defendants to the other, none of which were competent against the plaintiff.
The instructions given were correct and sufficient. The only point, upon which instructions were requested, which is not clearly covered by the instructions given, is that stated in the twenty-seventh request; but the attempt to vouch in the case of a promissory note (which might well be thought more likely to confuse than to assist the jury) justified the refusal of the whole of that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Herman Kahn Co. v. BowdenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Nichols v. JamesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881