Phillips v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Conte ACT. Besides the original declaration filed on the entry of the writ, the plaintiff filed an additional declaration for use and occupation.
Read the full summary
Conte ACT. Besides the original declaration filed on the entry of the writ, the plaintiff filed an additional declaration for use and occupation. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, O. J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that he let the defendant into possession of land on condition that he would cut and deliver to him 450 cords of wood; and that the defendant had not delivered the wood, and had not meant to do so when he went into possession. The original declaration could not be found, and the defendant, who had given notice to the plaintiff to produce it,…
1Opinion of the CourtMobtoh, J.
The declaration having been lost, the defendant produced at the trial a copy thereof. If we assume that this copy was proved to the satisfaction of the court, and filed as a part of the record, yet it could not be used or commented on as evidence in the cause. The statute provides that “ neither the declaration, answer, nor any subsequent allegation, shall be deemed evidence on the trial, but allegations only whereby the party making them is bound.” Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 72. This case is governed by Walcott v. Kimball, 13 Allen, 460. Exceptions sustained,.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Herman v. FineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Tart v. FiskeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Stoney v. SoarMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Demelman v. BurtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Harrington v. Metropolitan Transit AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.