Buffum v. York Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1900 |
| Citation | 56 N.E. 599,175 Mass. 471 |
| Parties | BUFFUM v. YORK MFG. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Wiggin & Fernald, for plaintiff.
The defendant's first exception is to the admission in evidence of five of its letters written to the plaintiff dated May 9, May 11, October 31, November 6, and November 18 1895, and of four letters of the plaintiff, to which those five letters were answers, namely, one of May 8th, answered by the defendant's letters of May 9th and 11th; one of October 22d, answered by the letter of October 31st; one of November 2d, answered by the letter of November 6th; and one of November 12th, answered by the letter of November 18th. The defendant also excepted to one letter written by the plaintiff, dated June 29th, which does not seem to have been answered by the defendant. These letters were introduced as part of the plaintiff's original case, and were objected to by the defendant as letters 'written after the second machine had been sold and delivered to the purchaser.' The defendant now seeks to support its objection to the admission of the plaintiff's letters on the ground that they were written after the controversy had originated, and were objectionable as giving the plaintiff the unfair advantage of a written argument prepared by himself; and it undertakes to support its objection to the introduction of its own letters on the authority of Stiles v. Railroad Corp., 8 Metc. 44; Sumner v. McNeil, 12 Metc. 519; Tuttle v. Brown, 4 Gray, 457. These cases held that declarations made by an agent after the termination of his agency are not admissible to affect the rights of his former principal, and it is evident that the objection made at the trial was made on the supposition that these cases were applicable, for no objection was made at the trial to the introduction of all letters written on one side and the other prior to the sale in question, and an objection was made to all letters written after the sale was made. But when, as in the case at bar, the letters are written in behalf of the defendant corporation by its general manager who took part in its behalf in the transactions in controversy, and who, as general manager, conducted the correspondence in its behalf with respect to those transactions, the letters written by him in the defendant's behalf are competent as its admissions. With the single exception of the plaintiff's letter of June 29th, the plaintiff's letters were letters to which the defendant's were answers, and were competent so far as they tended to qualify, explain, or aid in the construction of those letters. Fearing v. Kimball, 4 Allen, 125; Trischet v. Insurance Co., 14 Gray, 456. The objection that such letters give to the writer the unfair advantage of making an argument in...
To continue reading
Request your trial