Binney v. Russell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note. The answer alleged that the defendants made the note to the plaintiff in consideration of his assignment of certain letters patent, and of his covenant that he had not granted any licenses under them ; and that the consideration had failed. Trial and verdict for the defendants in the superior court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, the material part of which is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
In the defence of this case, it became im portant to prove that the plaintiff had given to George H. Mallory, of the city of New York, a license, a copy of which is set forth in the answer. The defendants took the deposition of Mallory, and requested him to produce the license and annex it to his answers. He produced it, but refused to annex it. But he annexed a copy of it, which he said he had compared with the orig-*56foal, and swore to its correctness. This copy was admitted fo evidence, and the plaintiff excepts to its admission.
This refusal to annex it was reasonable. It was held in Clark…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. ReyburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Mauri v. HeffernanNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by10 opinions
- Whilden & Sons v. Merchants' & Planters' National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Zellerbach v. AllenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Williamson v. Cambridge RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- L'Herbette v. Pittsfield National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Berwin v. CableMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.