Kittredge v. Russell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, for work done and for money paid for the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Devens, J., after the plaintiff had stated that he had closed his case, the defendant objected that the proof did not support the allegations of the declaration, and moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited.
Read the full summary
Contract, for work done and for money paid for the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Devens, J., after the plaintiff had stated that he had closed his case, the defendant objected that the proof did not support the allegations of the declaration, and moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited. At the suggestion of the court the plaintiff amended his declaration and filed an account for money had and received, which amendment was made upon terms which were complied with. The defendant asked the court to continue the action, and give him time to answer and make further…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The refusal to grant a continuance is not a subject of exception. Evidence of the defendant’s admissions is competent in support of the plaintiff’s case, and the witness may testify to the substance of them if he cannot remember the exact words. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff not being reported, it does not appear that there was a variance.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BonomiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Soper v. ManningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Childs v. New Haven & Northampton Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Commonwealth v. SolomonsenMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.