Reeve v. Dennett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for money lent upon a pledge of shares of stock in the Dennett Dental Naboli Company, a corporation formed to promote the use in dentistry of an invented compound called naboli; with counts in tort for false and fraudulent representations. After the former decision, reported 1B7 Mass. 315, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Staples, J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
After the plaintiff had elected not to go to the jury on the fourth and fifth counts, which were in tort, and the court had ordered Dr. Wetherbee’s testimony, impeaching the value of the invention, to be stricken out, the plaintiff called the defendant as a witness, and was allowed, under exception, to ask him if, prior to May 11, 1880, dentists were coming in from all parts of the country and using naboli; and the defendant answered that he did not think they were. On cross-examination, after testifying to his long experience as a dentist, the defendant was asked by his counsel certain…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Harrold v. Territory of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Allen v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Gossman v. RosenbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Galindez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.