Fenderson v. Owen
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON Exceptions. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The writ was dated June 4, 1864, and described the note as "bearing date June 5; 1858.” Plea, general issue and statute of limitations. Upon the production of the note at the trial, the defendant claimed that it appeared on its face to be dated Jan. 5, and not Jun. 5, and thereupon objected to its admission on the ground of variance.
Read the full summary
ON Exceptions. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The writ was dated June 4, 1864, and described the note as "bearing date June 5; 1858.” Plea, general issue and statute of limitations. Upon the production of the note at the trial, the defendant claimed that it appeared on its face to be dated Jan. 5, and not Jun. 5, and thereupon objected to its admission on the ground of variance. The plaintiff claimed that it appeared on its face to be dated Jun. 5, 1858. The plaintiff then called a witness to testify that the written date upon the note was Jun. and not Jan. The defendant seasonably objected…
1Opinion of the CourtWaltoN, J.
When it is necessary to determine the date of a paper offered in evidence, and the name of the month is so inartificially written that upon inspection the presiding Judge is unable to determine whether it should be read June or Januaiy, extraneous evidence is admissible to show the true date, and the question is a proper one to be submitted to the jury. So held in Armstrong v. Burrows, 6 Watts, 266, where the question was fully considered.
The same word was in dispute in that case as in this, namely, whether the name of the month in the date of a paper should be read June or January; and the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Armstrong v. BurrowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Young v. HORNBROOK INCORPORATEDSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1958