Holley v. Young
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Forcible entry and detainer. The case, on a former bill of exceptions, is stated in 65 Maine, 520. At the March term, 1877, the verdict was for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions to the exclusion of evidence offered, as in the opinion appears.
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
At the first trial of this action, it was admitted *216that “ the defendant paid his rent, specified in the lease, as it became due.” This admission was made in the report of the case then made up for the law court. At the last trial, the plaintiff offered to prove that the rent was not promptly paid when due. The evidence was excluded, upon the ground, it is said, that the admission was obligatory upon the plaintiff for the purposes of the last trial, as well as the first. Assuming such to be the ground of the exclusion, (and no other is suggested) we think the exceptions must be overruled. It…
2Cited by14 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Prestwood v. WatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Consolidated Steel & Wire Co. v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Sevigny v. City of BiddefordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
- Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. ShoupSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.